Bradley v. Yovino
| Decision Date | 07 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | AC 45040 |
| Parties | DHAMEER BRADLEY ET AL. v. NIKKI YOVINO ET AL. |
| Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Argued November 10, 2022
Procedural History
Action to recover damages for, inter alia, an alleged breach of contract, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the trial court, Jacobs J., denied the named plaintiffs motion for extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant Sacred Heart University, Inc.; thereafter, the court granted the motion for protective order filed by the defendant Sacred Heart University, Inc., and sustained its objection to the named plaintiffs motion to compel a second round of depositions; subsequently, the court, Jacobs J., granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant Sacred Heart University, Inc., as to the named plaintiffs revised complaint and rendered judgment thereon thereafter, the court, Jacobs, J., denied the named plaintiffs motion for reargument, and the named plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Jeffrey M. Cooper, for the appellant (named plaintiff).
James M. Sconzo, with whom was Brendan N. Gooley, for the appellee (defendant Sacred Heart University, Inc.).
Prescott, Cradle and DiPentima, Js.
This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiffs, Dhameer Bradley and Malik St. Hilaire, two former students of the defendant Sacred Heart University, Inc. (university), against the university and the defendant Nikki Yovino. Yovino, a fellow student at the university, accused the plaintiffs of sexually assaulting her but later recanted her allegations and pleaded guilty to the charges of falsely reporting an incident in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-180c and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a. In this action, the plaintiffs allege that Yovino committed various torts against them by falsely accusing them of sexual assault and that the university breached its contract with them in the manner in which it conducted an investigation into Yovino's accusations and by suspending them from the university.[1]
Bradley appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the university as to the count of the complaint brought by him against the university.[2] On appeal, he claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion to compel a round of second depositions of certain university employees and his related motion for an extension of time to respond to the university's motion for summary judgment,[3] (2) rendered summary judgment against him without permitting oral argument on the university's motion in violation of Practice Book § 11-18, and (3) denied his motion for reargument of his motion to compel and the summary judgment rendered against him. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradley's motion to compel a second round of depositions or his motion for an extension of time. We also conclude that, although the court improperly deprived the plaintiff of oral argument pursuant to Practice Book § 11-18, that error was harmless because, in light of the procedural posture of this case, there is not a reasonable probability that oral argument would have resulted in the trial court denying the motion for summary judgment. Finally, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bradley's motion for reargument.[4] Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment rendered against Bradley and in favor of the university.
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. On Saturday, October 15, 2016, Bradley, St. Hilaire, and Yovino attended an off campus party in Bridgeport. During the party, Bradley and St. Hilaire engaged in sexual intercourse with Yovino in a bathroom.[5] After leaving the bathroom, Yovino told her friends who were with her at the party that Bradley and St. Hilaire had sexually assaulted her. Early Sunday morning, Yovino and her friends went to St. Vincent's Medical Center in Bridgeport, and Yovino reported the sexual assault to hospital staff. Hospital staff performed a sexual assault examination and contacted the police. At the hospital, Yovino gave a statement to a police officer alleging that she was sexually assaulted by Bradley and St. Hilaire.
On October 17, 2016, the following Monday, a detective from the Bridgeport Police Department, Walberto Cotto, Jr., informed the university's dean of students, Larry Wielk, that, over the weekend, Yovino had reported that she was sexually assaulted by Bradley and St. Hilaire. Cotto also informed Wielk that an investigation into the alleged sexual assault was underway.[6]
The next day, Wielk approached Bradley on campus and informed him that, on the basis of allegations of sexual assault that had been made to the Bridgeport Police Department, he was suspended from the university. The suspension barred Bradley from participating in any university classes or sponsored events, and from playing on the football team of which Bradley was a member. He was permitted, however, to maintain contact with his professors through email.[7]
On the advice of counsel, Bradley withdrew from the university on November 4, 2016, which caused him to lose his football scholarship. The university later reinstated Bradley as a student, and he returned to complete his studies, graduating in December, 2018. His scholarship to play football, however, was not restored.
Bradley and St. Hilaire subsequently commenced the underlying action. In addition to Bradley's claims against Yovino, his operative complaint contains a single count by Bradley against the university sounding in breach of contract.[8] Bradley pleaded that the student handbook obligates the university and its officials to treat Bradley with "respect, dignity, and compassion" and mandates that "a presumption of guilt should not be made as a result of any allegations." Bradley alleged that the university's student handbook, which includes a policy on sexual misconduct, created a contract between the university and its students. Bradley further alleged that the university breached that contract by immediately suspending Bradley on the basis of an uncorroborated accusation of sexual assault by a fellow student and without any prior investigation by the university into the allegation. By way of relief, Bradley requested monetary damages to compensate him for the loss of his football scholarship and academic credits that Bradley forfeited due to his withdrawal from the university.
According to the court's scheduling orders, all disclosures pertaining to written discovery requests were due on March 30, 2020, and all depositions of fact witnesses and parties were to be completed by January 31, 2021. On November 17, 2020, the university disclosed additional documents that purportedly came to the university's attention in late October, 2020. The email sent to Bradley disclosing the documents stated: "We recently obtained the attached documents, which may be responsive to the discovery requests and/or may be relevant evidence." The newly disclosed documents included notes taken by Leonora P. Campbell, the university's Title IX coordinator, regarding a rumored sexual assault that purportedly was committed by Bradley prior to the incident involving Yovino (prior rumor documents). The rumored sexual assault had been brought to the attention of the university's football coach, Mark Nofri, by students who had heard of the alleged sexual assault from a third party. Neither the name of an alleged victim nor the name of any third party that informed the students of a possible sexual assault were ever disclosed to, or identified by, university employees.
Following the disclosure of the prior rumor documents, on January 8, 2021, Bradley filed a motion to compel a second round of depositions of Wielk and Campbell, who previously had been deposed on March 3, 2020, and March 5, 2020, respectively. Bradley argued that a second round of depositions was warranted because of the university's late disclosure of the prior rumor documents, which he asserted were responsive to his discovery requests and highly relevant to the case. In support of his motion, Bradley attached excerpts from Campbell's previous deposition, the email sent by the university disclosing the prior rumor documents, and the prior rumor documents. Bradley did not attach any of his prior discovery requests to demonstrate that the prior rumor documents were in fact responsive to any discovery requests he had served on the university. On January 18,2021, the court marked off Bradley's motion to compel without prejudice to reclaiming it and instructed Bradley and the university to confer in good faith to resolve or narrow the disputes.
On January 21, 2021, the university filed a motion for a protective order and an objection to Bradley's motion to compel a second round of depositions. In its motion for a protective order and objection, the university argued that the principles of equity and fairness should preclude a second round of depositions.
On February 1, 2021, the university filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to Bradley's breach of contract claim, accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the motion. On March 4, 2021, Bradley filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion, in which he adopted the arguments set forth in St. Hilaire's motion for extension of time, namely, that there remained an unresolved discovery dispute over Bradley's motion to compel a second round of depositions and that this evidence would help him oppose the university's motion for summary judgment.[9] The university filed an objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial