7/25/2019 Mendez v. JP Morgan
1/2
ORDER 431199DOCKET NO: HHDCV146049524S
MENDEZ, ANTHEA Et Al V.JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Et Al
SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD
8/25/2015
ORDER
ORDER REGARDING:08/10/2015 424.00 MOTION RE DEPOSITION
The foregoing, having been considered by the Court, is
hereby:
ORDER:
Various counsel at various times in this litigation have intoned
with solemnity that the transcript speaksfor itself. It does. And
the transcripts and e-mails attached to other motions also speak
for themselves.The interactions between the lawyers that are
exposed in those documents are disgraceful and are theantithesis of
the professionalism and civility which this court has traditionally
associated with therespected law firms by whom those lawyers are
employed. It has escalated and intensified over thecourse of these
proceedings. It simply can no longer be tolerated. This behavior
demeans theparticipants, demeans the witnesses and demeans the very
system of justice itself.
A deposition is an extension of a judicial proceeding. It should
be conducted according to the same rulesof decorum that would be
required were the parties in the courtroom itself. In addition,
lawyers are fullyexpected to control their clients and ensure that
they comply with their obligation to cooperate indiscovery and
observe rules of courtroom decorum. Because the depositions in this
case are not court-supervised, some attorneys and their clients
apparently believe they can get away with behavior they
would never try in open court.
The court has weighed a number of responses to this ongoing
situation. Babysitting lawyers at adeposition is not one of them.
Nonetheless, [t]he trial court has the authority to regulate the
conduct ofattorneys and has a duty to enforce the standards of
conduct regarding attorneys." (Internal quotationmarks omitted.)
Bergeron v. Mackler, 225 Conn. 391, 397, 623 A.2d 489 (1993).
Past instances of alleged misconduct on both sides which have
been brought to the attention of thecourt in the various pleadings
will not be the subject of any disciplinary action at this time.
However,they will most certainly be the background for any
disciplinary decisions going forward, andjustification for the
courts swift, if not summary, imposition of attorney discipline
with regard to futuremisconduct.
The parties will proceed with depositions, without the presence
of a judge, in the manner thatdepositions are traditionally
conducted. After the date of this order, at the conclusion of every
depositionconducted in this case, the party that has noticed the
deposition will forward a hard copy transcript of thedeposition (an
official court reporter certified copy is not necessary, a
photocopy is sufficient) to theCourt Officer, Sarah Sia, Esq. The
transcript will not be e-filed.
The court will review the transcripts when received. Without the
need for motions, e-mails, phone calls,letters or any other input,
assistance or comment from any counsel, the court will (based on
the record inthe transcript) arrive at its own judgment as to
whether the conduct of any attorney merits theintervention of the
court to enforce standards for attorney conduct.
HHDCV146049524S 8/25/2015 Page 1 of 2
7/25/2019 Mendez v. JP Morgan
2/2
If the court has reason to believe that misconduct has occurred,
the attorney(s) involved will be orderedto appear before this court
and show cause why he or she should not be sanctioned because the
allegedmisconduct constitutes a failure to make a reasonably
diligent effort to comply with a legally properdiscovery request by
an opposing party in violation of Rule 3.4(4) of the Rules of
Professional Conductor is prejudicial to the administration of
justice in violation of Rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of
ProfessionalConduct.
Henceforth, in any pleading filed with this court, in any e-mail
that comes before this court, in anytranscript that comes before
this court, if any attorney makes any reference to the manner in
whichopposing counsel has chosen to prosecute or defend this case,
or makes any remark about opposingcounsel that is in the least bit
personally disparaging, that lawyer will be swiftly and severely
sanctioned.
The lawyers in this case are ORDERED to immediately end their
personal side squabbles and preparethis case for trial. The court
will not allow the lawyers apparent dislike for each other and
tendencytoward incivility to continue to interfere with the orderly
progress of the court docket and the fairadministration of
justice.
Judicial Notice (JDNO) was sent regarding this order.
431199Judge: DAVID M SHERIDAN
HHDCV146049524S 8/25/2015 Page 2 of 2
