Opinion
HHDCV176073898S
04-19-2018
Faiz SIDDIQUI v. Erum Majid RANDHAWA
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
CESAR A. NOBLE, J.
Before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to reargue its decision of April 4, 2018. This decision addressed the multiple attempts by the plaintiff, currently a resident of London, to avoid returning to Connecticut for deposition. Familiarity with the statement of facts contained in the decision, Siddiqui v. Randhawa, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 176073898 (April 4, 2018, Noble, J.) (Siddiqui I ), is presumed. Suffice to say that the court ordered the plaintiff to return to Connecticut for deposition on or before May 2, 2018.
The present motion advances a basis not previously raised in objection to the defendant’s efforts to compel the plaintiff to return to Connecticut for deposition, to wit, a previously undisclosed asthmatic condition currently undergoing an infective exacerbation. The plaintiff provides with his motion a letter from a medical doctor, Jedth Phornnarit, describing the exacerbation and the prescription of oral antibiotics, steroid tablets and a preventative steroid inhaler. Dr. Phornnarit opines that the plaintiff should not fly between the date of his letter, April 17, 2018, and May 2, 2018. The doctor also asserts that a " severe asthma attack whilst on a transatlantic flight would pose a potential threat to life."
It is clear that although styled a motion to reargue the present motion- which raises a heretofore unraised factual assertion, the plaintiff’s asthmatic condition- is more properly considered a new independent motion, perhaps in the nature of a motion for protective order. The court considers it on its merits rather than rejecting it for its failure to suggest that the court’s decision overlooked a controlling principle of law or misapprehended material facts. See e.g. In re Elianah T-T., 327 Conn. 912, 3-4, 171 A.3d 447 (2017) (motion for reconsideration intended to demonstrate the existence of an overlooked principle of law or a misapprehension of fact).
The court is not persuaded that the plaintiff has met the burden of persuasion required to secure protection from a noticed deposition pursuant to the court’s order. See Siddiqui I, p. 10. While Dr. Phornnarit asserts a medical principle with which the court does not quibble, that a ‘severe asthma attack whilst on a transatlantic flight would pose a potential threat to life," Dr. Phornnarit does not opine that such an event is even potentially likely to be suffered by the plaintiff. Indeed, the doctor’s prescription of a course medication of only one week’s duration suggests only a more limited period of medical concern. Presuming a limitation of travel during the course of medication, the plaintiff still has eight days within which to comply with the court’s order to appear for deposition in Connecticut before May 2, 2018 or suffer a nonsuit. The motion is therefore denied.
SO ORDERED.