*1 Defendant Lisa Nkonoki (“Defendant”) has engaged in a cynical and contumacious campaign to deny plaintiff needed discovery reasonably requested and repeatedly ordered by three different judges over a four year period. In testimony at a sanctions hearing commenced on October 13, 2023, and continued five times for various reasons on October 31, 2023, December 18, 2023, March 4, 2024, July 24, 2024, and September 11, 2024, defendant obfuscated and dissembled in an obvious and egregious ploy to play out the clock and deny plaintiff information and documents she needed for the trial, which has been delayed three times and is now scheduled to commence on November 26, 2024. For the reasons stated below, the Court will issue discovery sanctions against defendant in response to her willful and bad faith failure to provide discovery.[1]

In Pavlinko v. Yale New Haven Hospital, 192 Conn. 138, 144 (1984), the Supreme Court listed the factors a court should consider before imposing a discovery sanction:

Practice Book § 13-14 and inherent authority to oversee discovery afford courts discretion to impose sanctions in the appropriate case. See D'Ascanio v. Toyota Industries Corp., 309 Conn. 663, 671 (2013). In applying these rules, the court should be mindful of the “policy preference to bring about a trial on the merits of a dispute whenever possible and to secure for the litigant his day in court.” D'Ascanio, 309 Conn. at 671. Significantly, “the primary purpose of a sanction for violation of a discovery order is to ensure that the [defendant's] rights are protected, not to exact punishment on the [plaintiff] for [his] allegedly improper conduct.” Usowski v. Jacobson, 267 Conn. 73, 85 (2003). Pursuant to Practice Book § 13-14(b)(2), the plaintiff may recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees related to this motion.

In Asztalos v. Stop & Shop Supermarket, 2000 WL 327450 *4 (Conn.Super. 2000) (Robinson, J.), then Judge Robinson, later Chief Justice, stressed the importance of following and enforcing the discovery rules and found “the failure to provide timely production of discovery information, despite ample opportunity to do so supports a finding that the plaintiff violated § 13-14(a) of the practice book.” Judge Robinson found “the plaintiff's failure to comply was willful and the result of bad faith.” Citing Pavlinko Judge Robinson dismissed the case:

In Stanley Shenker and Associates, Inc. v. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc., 48 Conn.Supp. 357, 378 (2003) (Rogers, J.), then Judge Rogers, later Chief Justice, dismissed the case as a discovery sanction for perjury at a deposition and concealment of material evidence: “In sum, the record before the court necessitates dismissal of the present action. The plaintiff has now admitted that he repeatedly and intentionally engaged in perjury regarding issues central to the case until faced with irrefutable evidence that he had testified falsely. The plaintiff also has admitted that evidence was concealed and even in some cases destroyed. This pattern of egregious conduct has resulted in prejudice to the opposing party both in terms of time and expense.”

In Bell v. Hope Home Health Agency, Inc., 2019 WL 5549338 *4-5 (Conn.Super. 2019) (Budzik, J.), Judge Budzik found that certain deposition testimony was deliberately false and misleading, and that a crucial document was concealed to the other party's prejudice, so he imposed a sanction that certain facts be deemed established in the case, that the jury be instructed on the false and misleading testimony under oath and the movant was awarded costs and fees under Practice Book § 13-14(b)(2).

In the leading case of Millbrook Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 16 (2001), the Supreme Court provided guidance concerning the exercise of discretion to impose discovery sanctions:

The Millbrook Court imposed a three-part test for evaluating the imposition of discovery sanctions, two of which are present here, the orders plaintiff disobeyed were reasonably clear, yet plaintiff knowingly violated them. The third requirement is that “the sanction imposed must be proportional to the violation.” 257 Conn. at 18.

The history of this case viewed in totality is replete with evidence of defendant deliberately flouting her discovery obligations and her willful failure to comply with reasonably clear discovery orders.[2] On November 2, 2020, (Genuario, J.) granted plaintiff's motion for order of compliance dated October 9, 2020, for failure to produce documents: “Compliance is ordered by December 2, 2020.” On July 27, 2023, (Clark, J.), after oral argument, Judge Clark granted plaintiff's motions for order of compliance dated May 15, 2023, and July 6, 2023, for failure properly to respond to document requests and interrogatories served on September 9, 2019:” The defendant shall comply within thirty (30) days of this order or no later than August 25, 2023.” On September 11, 2023, this Court granted plaintiff's motion for failure to comply with prior discovery orders dated August 29, 2023: “Compliance is ordered by October 11, 2023 “In response to plaintiff's motion for default for failure to comply with order dated October 13, 2023, the Court issued another order: “Defendant shall show cause why sanctions should not enter against her for repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery at a remote hearing to be held at 2:00 pm on November 13, 2023.” On November 14, 2023, This Court entered an order that required the parties to exchange and upload all exhibits on the sanctions hearing. Defendant delayed the hearing by falsely stating plaintiff had failed to comply with this order. The sanctions hearing spread out over several months as the Court sought to accommodate the parties and to give defendant ample opportunities to comply with her discovery obligations.[3]

*3 The above orders disregarded by defendant were only a few of the various orders issued in response to defendant's constant resistance to plaintiff obtaining discovery, including her denied motions to quash and overruled objections to plaintiff's efforts to obtain discovery from third parties denied her by defendant's failure to disclose information and documents that were within her possession, custody and/or control.[4] When third party discovery was obtained, it confirmed that defendant had not been truthful or complete in her discovery responses. In addition, defendant falsely asserted compliance with the discovery orders by filing untrue notices of compliance and by false and misleading testimony at the sanctions hearing that she had produced everything.[5] Defendant also committed other discovery abuses by submitting incomplete and unverified discovery responses and promising to provide information and documents that were never produced, or which were produced months and years after they were requested, and she was ordered to produce them.

The failures to disclose and delays caused by defendant's discovery misconduct worked a tangible and unfair benefit to defendant to plaintiff's severe prejudice in preparing her case. Among other things it has interfered with plaintiff's ability to depose defendant and will hamper plaintiff's ability to present her case and to defend against defendant's counterclaim.

For example, plaintiff has been unable to obtain witness statements given to the Greenwich Police Department by seven other clients of defendant who complained to the police about her activities.[6] At a deposition in a related case defendant admitted she had the witness statements produced by the Greenwich Police Department in connection with discovery in her criminal prosecution.[7] During a status conference on October 31, 2023, defendant admitted she was withholding certain documents related to an “ongoing criminal investigation” and the Court warned her she should produce all responsive documents unless some privilege was claimed.[8] At the sanctions hearing defendant admitted in testimony the Greenwich Police Department had produced over 3000 pages of documents, including statements by her and Norris, her alleged co-conspirator, plaintiff and other complaining witnesses, which the Court finds had been available to her in her criminal attorney's files as she stonewalled plaintiff and disobeyed discovery orders. However, now that her criminal prosecution has been resolved, the Greenwich Police Department and defendant's criminal defense lawyer have declared these documents are no longer available to plaintiff by virtue of the criminal records erasure law see C.G.S. § 54-142a.[9] They were available to defendant before her criminal charges were resolved but she failed to produce them or to disclose the information they contained despite the discovery orders that required such disclosures. The Court finds that defendant deliberately withheld these material and discoverable documents and deprived plaintiff of the information they contained intentionally to interfere with plaintiff's ability to use them or their contents against her in this case. Moreover, defendant withheld material and discoverable information about the matters likely contained in these records that were otherwise unavailable to plaintiff which should have been disclosed, and also likely withheld copies of documents, and facts, known by her outside her knowledge gleaned from review of the police records in her possession, custody and control that should have been disclosed to plaintiff.[10]

*4 Defendant has also willfully withheld information and documents relating to certain persons plaintiff has accused of being defendant's confederates, co-conspirators and accomplices in the scheme to abuse plaintiff's trust, who were also allegedly involved in similar schemes to abuse the trust of other clients of defendant.[11]

The failure to provide discovery concerning similarly situated clients and defendant's dealings with them and with her alleged “team” prejudiced plaintiff in the preparation of her claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. § 42-110a et seq. (“CUTPA”), and the alleged civil conspiracy, that depend upon proof of defendant's unfair and deceptive business practices. Despite the serious nature of defendant's discovery misconduct and considering the totality of circumstances the Court will not enter the most extreme sanction of default and nonsuit on her counterclaim. See Speer v. Danjon Capital, Inc., 222 Conn.App. 624, 636 (2023). The Court will enter sanctions designed to attempt to rectify the prejudice to plaintiff from defendant's discovery abuses.

The Court will enter the following sanctions: