In Duart vs. Department of Correction, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision that someone seeking a new trial due to the opposing party’s alleged discovery misconduct must show, among other things, a reasonable probability that the result of a new trial would be different than the first trial.
In the case, a Department of Correction (DOC) employee brought discrimination claims against DOC. After the jury issued a verdict denying the employee’s claims, she filed a motion for a new trial because of DOC’s failure to disclose certain documents during the discovery process. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court in denying the plaintiff’s request for a new trial.
In its discussion, the majority noted that “requiring a showing of a different result serves as a means of differentiating those cases in which the nonmoving party’s alleged misconduct materially affected the resolution of the underlying case—and in which, accordingly, the increased burden and expense is thereby warranted—from those cases in which relitigation would be a pointless exercise.”
In a dissent, Justice Eveleigh, joined by Justice Vertefeuille, proposed an alternative burden-shifting framework in which the non-compliant party would “bear the burden of rebutting the presumption that its substantial noncompliance with the movant’s discovery requests was material to the issues at trial.”
