Siddiqui v. Randhawa

Faiz SIDDIQUI v. Erum Majid RANDHAWA

No. HHDCV176073898S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

April 19, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION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...