Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 112 Filed 11/O3/2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CLIFTON S. FREEDMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 3:03CVI048 (PCD)
v. )
)
THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD. )
DETECTIVE WILLIAM YOUNG AND )
DETECTIVE DAVID BENSEY )
(Individually and in their official capacities ) NOVEMBER 3, 2005
as police officers for the Town of Fairfield, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter seek to have the Judgment amended in
three respects, alleging that there exists "the need to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice." Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Albany. 155 F.R.D. 409
(N.D.N.Y. 1994). Neither condition has been met in tl1e case at bar, as no error of law
exists, and sustaining the Judgment entered by the jury would not result in manifest
injustice.
First, the Judgment does accurately reflect that the Plaintiff did in fact prevail
011 Count One of the Complaint, which was memorialized on the record by the
Honorable Peter C. Dorsey during the charge to the jury. Additionally, the Plaintiff
fails to allege any error or omission that would give rise to an amended judgment.
"No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect
in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the
parties is gI'Ol.I1lCl for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating,

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 112 Filed 11/O3/2005 Page 2 of 4
modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such
action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice." Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Rule 61, 2005.
As to Plaintiff’s second manner in which they seek to amend the Judgment,
the jury returned a verdict exonerating Detective Young and Detective Bensey of any
liability. As such, Defendant The Town of Fairfield should not beheld vicariously
· liable per Connecticut General Statutes §'?-465.
While defense counsel agree with the plaintifi`s claim that 18 U.S.C. §
2702(c) does contain a minimum statutory damages of $1,000.00, the Defendants
contend that a legitmate defense exists in the same United States Code. 18 U.S.C.
§2702(e) outlines t11e parameters qualifying for a defense of a violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. "(e) Defense.- a good faith reliance on- ....
(2) a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 251 8(?') of
this title; or....". 18 U.S.C. §2702(e). Thejurors in the instant case returned a verdict
that clearly demonstrated their finding that the damages proven by the plaintiff were
nothing more than nominal damages. Therefore, should the Court in the case at bar
negate the defense contained in the United States Code and amend the award to the
minimum statutory level, the defendants respectfully request that the Court label that
minimum statutory amount as "nominal damages", consistent with the intentions of
the jurors in this case.

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 112 Filed 11/O3/2005 Page 3 of 4
For tl1e foregoing reasons, the Defendants respectfully request that this Count
sustain the Objection to the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Judgment.
THE DEFENDANTS
By:
Walter A. Shalvoy, Jr. (ct25 l 32)
Maher & Murtha, LLC
528 Clinton Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06605
(203) 367-2700

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 112 Filed 11/O3/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been faxed on this 3"I day of
November, 2005 to the following:
Daniel J. Klau, Esq.
Pepe & Hazard LLP
Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103-4302
Fax No: 860-522—2T96
Walter A. Shalvoy, Jr.