United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[DOC. 86]
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Thais Ortolaza ex rel E., a minor child, has moved for the
Court to reconsider and vacate its Ruling filed May 24, 2019,
388 F.Supp.3d 109 (D. Conn. 2019) (“the May 2019
Ruling”). The May 2019 Ruling dismissed Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint against the CREC Defendants. Plaintiff
couples the present motion for reconsideration of that Ruling
with a stated intention to file a second amended complaint.
The CREC Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration.
I.
BACKGROUND
The May
2019 Ruling, the subject of the present motion for
reconsideration, was preceded by an opinion dismissing the
original Complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to file the
Amended Complaint. That earlier opinion is reported at 2018
WL 2100280 (D. Conn May 7, 2018) (the “May 2018
Ruling”). For purposes of this Ruling on
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, familiarity with
these two prior opinions is assumed. The prior opinions
recite in detail the facts and circumstances of the case, a
recitation repeated in this Ruling only to the extent
necessary to explain the Court's resolution of
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
The
incident in suit occurred during the morning of November 19,
2015, when E., a student at a CREC school, was arrested by
Hartford police and briefly detained before being released
without charges against him. The police acted in response to
communications from school administrators who early that
morning had received and considered an anonymous threatening
email. Plaintiff's initial complaint asserted claims
arising out of E.'s arrest and detention against the
school administrators (“the CREC Defendants”) and
Hartford police officers (“the Hartford
Defendants”).
The
central fact at issue in Plaintiff's § 1983 action
against the CREC-Defendant school administrators is the
manner in which E. came to be identified to the Hartford
police as the suspected author of the threatening e-mail. The
gravamen of Plaintiff's federal claims against the CREC
Defendants is that those Defendants should be regarded as
joint “state actors” with the police with respect
to the arrest and detention of E. In the May 2018 Ruling, the
Court dismissed Plaintiff's original Complaint against
the CREC Defendants because Plaintiff failed to make that
showing as a matter of law. Plaintiff was granted leave to
file an Amended Complaint in an effort to state a viable
federal claim against the CREC Defendants. Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint attempting to do so. The May 2019 Ruling
dismissed the Amended Complaint on the same ground:
Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently allege that the CREC
Defendants were “state actors” for § 1983
purposes.
II.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
seeks reconsideration of the May 2019 Ruling on the basis of
“newly discovered evidence.” The CREC Defendants
seek to preserve the May 2019 Ruling. Their initial
contention is that the evidence Plaintiff relies upon is not
“newly discovered, ” and consequently cannot
support a motion for reconsideration.
This
threshold dispute necessitates the fashioning of a procedural
chronology. The following dates are pertinent:
Date of incident: November 19, 2015
Original Complaint filed against CREC and Hartford
Defendants: November 9, 2017
Ruling dismissing original Complaint against CREC Defendants
filed, with leave to replead: May 7, 2018
Amended Complaint filed: June 15, 2018
Motion by CREC Defendants to dismiss Amended Complaint:
August 13, 2018
Briefing completed on CREC motion to dismiss Amended
Complaint: October 4, 2018
Ruling dismissing Amended Complaint against CREC Defendants:
May 23, 2019
Motion for reconsideration of that Ruling: June 5, 2019
Stipulation dismissing Plaintiff's action against
Hartford Defendants: July 25, 2019
As this
litigation progressed, the parties to the action also
conducted discovery. Although the CREC Defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint against them on August 13,
2018, there was no application to stay discovery during the
pendency of that motion. The Hartford Defendants, who had
never moved to dismiss the action against them, continued
their participation in the case, including pre-trial
discovery, until the July 25, 2018 stipulation of dismissal
as to them. It is necessary to consider the accomplished
discovery in detail because Plaintiff contends the fruits of
that discovery constitute “newly discovered
evidence” requiring reconsideration and vacatur of the
May 2019 Ruling dismissing the Amended Complaint against the
CREC Defendants.
The
discovery in question consists of six depositions and the
interrogatory responses of two individuals. All the
depositions were conducted by Plaintiff's counsel, who
also propounded the interrogatories. The details are as
follows:
February 4, 2019: deposition of Nicholas Triglia, a Hartford
police Defendant.
February 5, 2019: deposition of Brian Gustis, a Hartford
police Defendant.
February 8, 2019: interrogatory responses of Robert McCain
and Tim Sullivan, CREC Defendants.
February 22, 2019: deposition of Christopher Nolan, a CREC
...