Connecticut Superior Court, 1940

Tishkevich v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.

Tishkevich v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
Connecticut Superior Court · Decided December 9, 1940 · Munger
9 Conn. Supp. 6; 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 185

Counsel

Robert J. Woodruff, of New Haven, for the Plaintiffs., Carmody, Larkin & Torrance, of Waterbury, for the Defendant.

Tishkevich v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.

Opinion of the Court

MUNGER, J.

The purpose of a motion of this kind is to enable the party to intelligently plead and prepare his case for trial. It seeks to put him in possession of sufficient infor' mation to properly try his case. It is never appropriate where the information sought to be obtained is purely evidential.

It is apparent from an inspection of the motion that all of the information called for is evidential in character. The language of the rule which allows the motion to be made is this: “Where the pleadings do not fully disclose the ground of claim or defense.” (Practice Book [1934] §62.) Our court has said that the power to grant a motion of this kind is largely discretionary to be exercised with caution and never for unsubstantial reasons. Prince vs. Takash, 75 Conn. 616, 619.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.