--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2025 WL 341909 (Mohegan Gaming Trial Ct.)
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial Court.
Alan PORPORINO
v.
MOHEGAN TRIBAL GAMING AUTHORITY
7 G.D.R. 121
|
GDTC-T-24-100-JAM
|
JANUARY 2, 2025
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
McNamara, J.
SUMMARY
Plaintiff brought suit alleging he was negligently handled, placed on the ground, and taken into custody while engaged in gaming at the Mohegan Sun Casino. Plaintiff filed discovery requests, requesting, inter alia, the delivery of all recorded surveillance materials. In response, Defendant moved for a protective order offering instead that Plaintiff’s counsel could review the surveillance materials, and take notes, at the Mohegan Reservation or Defendant’s counsel’s office in New Haven. The Gaming Disputes Trial Court, McNamara, J., granted Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and ordered that the surveillance materials may be viewed by counsel of record at the office of the Clerk of the Gaming Disputes Court, the office of Defendant’s counsel, or as otherwise agreed by the parties, and prohibited further dissemination of the materials.
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Second Revised Complaint alleges that Plaintiff engaged in gaming at Mohegan Sun on February 16, 2023 and that while gaming, he was negligently handled, placed on the ground, handcuffed, taken into custody, left on a bench, made to wait, seized, and caused to be held on a $2,500 bond. The Second Revised Complaint also alleges that the Defendant failed to use a “non-negligent amount of force in negligently detaining the Plaintiff.” The Second Revised Complaint is a single count sounding in negligence.
Plaintiff, through counsel, propounded discovery requests to the Defendant. The discovery requests included a request for the production of: “A copy of each and every recording of surveillance material discoverable under Practice Book Section 13-3(c), by film, photograph, videotape, audiotape or any other digital or electronic means, of any party to this lawsuit concerning this lawsuit or the subject matter thereof, including any transcript of such recording.”
The Defendant objected that:
“Mohegan Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain a § 13-3(c). If Plaintiff is citing the Connecticut Practice Book, Defendant objects that any recordings identified or identifiable in response to this request include video security and surveillance recordings that may only be produced subject to MRCP Rules §§ 28.e and 30A, and that the MRCP supersede any conflicting rule of the Connecticut Practice Book. MRCP § 1.a.”
Defendant further claims that it is aware of certain recordings made on or about February 16, 2023 and all such recordings are subject to disclosure solely pursuant to MRCP § 30A.
MRCP § 30A(a) states:
“... materials in the custody or control of the [Defendants] ... other than materials the production of which is required under § 30 of these Rules otherwise, which materials are subject of a subpoena duces tecum issued in the course of legal proceedings in the Mohegan Court System including but not limited to video security and surveillance recordings, and which are determined by the keeper thereof to be confidential or whose public release would be contrary to the effective regulation of gaming or the best interest of the Mohegan Tribe, may be delivered by the recipient of said subpoena to the Clerk of the Mohegan Court in which said proceedings are pending and shall be placed under seal by the Clerk pending in camera review by the court. Such materials shall not be open to inspection by any person except by order of a Judge of the Mohegan Court System.”
Further, MRCP § 30A(b) provides:
“Motion For Protective Order. The Mohegan Tribe, the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, or other tribal entity which has been served with such subpoena may file with the Mohegan Court in which such proceedings are pending, prior to or contemporaneously with the delivery of subpoenaed materials a motion for protective order seeking to prohibit or limit the dissemination or inspection of the subpoena materials or such orders with respect thereto as are deemed appropriate to protect the confidentiality of tribal materials, the effective regulation of gaming, or otherwise as may be in the best interest of the Mohegan Tribe. Nothing contained in this section shall limit the availability of a motion for protective order pursuant to § 28(e).”
B. LAW AND ARGUMENT
It is the Plaintiff’s contention that MRCP § 30A is only applicable to materials subjected to a subpoena duces tecum and those materials required under § 30 of these Rules.
Defendant contends that disclosure of the surveillance materials relevant to this case should be limited in order to protect the confidentiality of Tribal materials, the effective regulation of Gaming, and the best interest of the Mohegan Tribe.
It is the Court’s opinion that MRCP § 30A does not apply in this case. The clear language of MRCP § 30A states that it is only applicable to materials in the custody or control of the Mohegan Tribe, other than materials the production of which is required under § 30 of these Rules or otherwise, which materials are subject of a subpoena duces tecum issued in the course of legal proceedings in the Mohegan Court System. In this case, the surveillance and body camera footage requested by Plaintiff is not subject to a subpoena duces tecum. Furthermore, disclosure of the surveillance and body camera footage is required under MRCP § 30 and does not require a subpoena duces tecum for disclosure. The Court therefore holds that MRCP § 30A is not applicable in this matter.
The Defendant also claims that pursuant to MRCP § 28(e) the Court may issue a Protective Order if the requested materials are “confidential, sensitive and/or contain proprietary information.”
MRCP § 28 (e) states in pertinent part:
“Upon a motion by a party or by a person from whom discovery is sought, and for good case shown, the Court may make such order as justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
The Defendant claims that the release of the surveillance video and body-cam video could compromise the integrity of gaming. As set forth in the Affidavit of John Meskill (attached to Defendant’s Brief), unrestricted disclosure of the surveillance video and the body-cam video would adversely affect the confidentiality of Tribal materials, the effective regulation of gaming, or would otherwise be contrary to the best interest of the Mohegan Tribe.
The Court agrees. The Plaintiff’s Revised Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was engaged in gaming when he was negligently mistreated. According to the Affidavit of John Meskill, the video contains footage of the gaming floor and gaming activity. The Tribe has strict rules regarding the use of cameras or videography by the general public in any location where there is gaming activity. Signs are posted throughout the casino prohibiting cameras and the use of video recording devices in gaming facilities. If this were a slip and fall case in an area not used for gaming, this Court might feel differently, but the alleged incident occurred on the gaming floor.
The issue of whether a Protective Order is issued shall be based on a case-by-case basis. The central issue should be how impactful the video is on the effective regulation of gaming or the best interest of the Mohegan Tribe.
The Court is also mindful that the Defendant must prove good cause as required by § 28(e). This Court concludes that in light of the location of the alleged incident and allegations against the Tribe, they have established “good cause” as required by Mohegan Rules of Civil Procedure Rule § 28(e).
The Defendant’s proposed Protective Order is not unduly burdensome. The Defendant proposes to deliver the surveillance video to the Court under seal and said video can be viewed by Plaintiff’s counsel either with or without the presence of Plaintiff, at either the offices of the Clerk of the Gaming Disputes Court, or at Defendant’s Counsel’s office, or at such other location upon which the parties may mutually agree.
Therefore, this Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and (a) authorizes and directs the Defendant to submit the surveillance video under seal; and (b) enters the Defendant’s proposed Protective Order as an order of this Court.
All Citations
--- Am. Tribal Law ----, 2025 WL 341909