Opinion
No. CV 04 4001639-S
January 4, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION # 158 TO COMPEL
I. BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2005, the plaintiff, Churchill Linen Service, Inc., filed a three-count amended complaint against the defendant, Miso, Inc., alleging a breach of contract. The defendant filed an answer, accompanied by a special defense and a three-count counterclaim, on June 16, 2005. Pursuant to this counterclaim, the defendant seeks money damages, costs, attorneys fees and other equitable relief, with the amount in demand greater than $3,000 but less than $15,000. On August 31, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel for failure to comply with discovery, and which also sought a default on the complaint and non-suit on the counterclaim. The defendant filed an objection to the plaintiff's motion on August 23, 2005, and the matter was heard on the short calendar on October 24, 2005.
II. DISCUSSION
The general issue before the court is whether a defendant must provide a specific statement of damages in support of its counterclaim for a breach of contract. "[A] counterclaim should be pleaded in exactly the same way the claim would be pleaded in the complaint in an independent action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Home Oil Co. v. Todd, 195 Conn. 333, 341, 487 A.2d 1095 (1985); see also Practice Book § 10-54. General Statutes § 52-91 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he first pleading on the part of the plaintiff shall be known as the complaint and shall contain . . . on a separate page of the complaint, a demand for the relief, which shall be a statement of the remedy or remedies sought. When money damages are sought in the demand for relief, the demand for relief shall set forth: (1) That the amount, legal interest or property in demand is fifteen thousand dollars or more . . . or (2) that the amount, legal interest or property in demand is two thousand five hundred dollars or more but is less than fifteen thousand dollars . . . or (3) that the amount, legal interest or property in demand is less than two thousand five hundred dollars . . ." See also Practice Book § 10-20. Furthermore, the "prayer for relief must articulate with specificity the form of relief that is sought . . . A party who fails to comply with this rule runs the risk of being denied recovery." (Citations omitted.) Stern v. Medical Examining Board, 208 Conn. 492, 501, 545 A.2d 1080 (1988).
In Stein v. Nordling, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 96 0151325 (November 5, 1996, Tobin, J.) ( 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 200), the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant's counterclaim because the defendant failed to file a demand for relief as required by § 52-91. Although the prayer for relief specified that monetary and compensatory damages, interest and other relief were sought, it failed to specify whether the amount sought was less than $2,500, more than $2,500 but less than $15,000, or more than $15,000. Denying the plaintiff's motion to strike, the court held that the prayer for relief was legally sufficient although it did not literally comply with the requirements of § 52-91 and § 10-20. See also Season v. Toepke, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 94 0138296 (May 26, 1995, Karazin, J.) (holding that "the counterclaims are legally sufficient, despite the failure to include the specific amount of damages demanded in the prayer for relief").
In the present case, the defendant articulated the forms of relief sought: money damages, costs, attorneys fees and other equitable relief. In addition, the defendant specified that the amount of relief sought was greater than $3,000 but less than $15,000. Furthermore, the counterclaim contained a statement of the amount in demand, although this statement was not contained on a separate page. Notwithstanding that the prayer for relief does not comply with the technical requirements of § 52-91 and § 10-20, in that it was not on a separate page and it specified the amount sought was greater than $3,000 rather than $2,500, the court finds that this request for relief is legally sufficient because it put the plaintiff on notice as to the amount and types of damages sought.
The specific question before the court is whether the defendant's responses to the plaintiff's interrogatories regarding the amount of damages sought are sufficient for purposes of the motion to compel. The defendant's responses included "N/A" and "to be determined." The plaintiff argues that the defendant "failed or refused to answer these interrogatories with respect to the defendant's computation of damages." The plaintiff, however, argues that these computations cannot be provided at this time because the damages continue to accrue.
"The discovery rules are designed to facilitate trial proceedings and to make a trial less a game of blindman's [bluff] and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chief of Police v. Freedom of Information Commission, 52 Conn.App. 12, 16, 724 A.2d 554 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 377, 746 A.2d 1264 (2000). Practice Book § 13-6(b) provides, in relevant part, that "[i]nterrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under [Practice Book Section] 13-2 . . ." Furthermore, § 13-2 provides, in pertinent part, that "[i]n any civil action . . . a party may obtain . . . discovery of information or disclosure, production and inspection of papers, books or documents material to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . whether the discovery or disclosure relates to the claim or defense . . . Discovery shall be permitted if the disclosure sought would be of assistance in the prosecution or defense of the action . . ." Interrogatories requesting a calculation of damages and how these damages were calculated are permissible. See, John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc., 845 F.2d 1172, 1176 (2d Cir. 1988) (affirming sanctions imposed for a party's failure to respond to interrogatories requesting a calculation of its damages, the documents relied upon and identification of those individuals who participated in the calculation).
Although certain damages will continue to accrue, such as attorneys fees as argued by the defendant, the defendant should be capable of calculating other damages requested in the interrogatories. For example, since the plaintiff and defendant have ceased all business transactions, the damages as to the breach of contract claims should be fixed and determinable.
III. CONCLUSION
The court finds that the defendant's response to the plaintiff's interrogatories is insufficient.