DocketNumber: No. 395889
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 21
Judges: MALONEY, J.
Filed Date: 1/6/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The issues in contention with respect to these motions now before the court involve the interaction of General Statutes
The questions of law concerning the possible conflict between the statute and regulation cited above arise out of the present record in this case. Their addition to this appeal, as set forth in the proposed amendment, will not prejudice the defendants nor delay the proceedings. The request to amend is, therefore, granted.
The defendants' concession that the Board members did not attend the hearing is sufficient to present the legal issues to the court for decision. To the extent that the plaintiff's discovery motions and requests seek to impeach the Board CT Page 22 members' statements or probe their mental processes, they are not warranted by the circumstances of this case. The court notes that the plaintiff has made absolutely no factual assertions that would support even a suspicion of untruthfulness or inaccuracy in the Board members' attestations. The plaintiff may not, therefore, introduce evidence outside the record on these subjects, and the motion for a protective order is granted. The court's previous order is modified accordingly.
MALONEY, J.