DocketNumber: No. CV 920295347
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 5163, 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 334
Judges: FREEDMAN, J.
Filed Date: 5/26/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The court grants the plaintiff's motion to re-depose Jester. While the court grants the plaintiff's motion to depose the other non-party witnesses, the court refrains from declaring these non-party witnesses as hostile or adverse to the plaintiff. Presently, there is not enough evidence to satisfy the court as to such a determination. It is conceivable that while some of these witnesses may turn out to be hostile or adverse to the plaintiff some might turn out to be neutral.
Nevertheless, to the extent that the plaintiff considers these witnesses to be hostile, it would be proper for the plaintiff's attorney to ask them leading questions. It is axiomatic that opposing counsel may object to the form of those questions. Where an objection is raised by defense counsel, to CT Page 5164 form, the witness must answer unless the question: (1) involves a claim of privilege; (2) is harassing or embarrassing in nature; or (3) is palpably irrelevant. "All questions, including those objected to, are to be answered; . . . unless the objecting party procures from the court a protective order precluding or limiting the scope of disclosure." Pavlinko v. Yale-New Haven Hospital,
The court refuses to order the defendant's counsel to refrain from conferring with or reviewing documents with the non-party witnesses.
SAMUEL S. FREEDMAN, JUDGE