The Connecticut motion for compliance: answering misleadingly is its own ground
Connecticut procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
Connecticut does not call it a motion to compel. It is an order for compliance under Practice Book § 13-14, and the grounds are drafted more broadly than anywhere else.
Most states let you move when an answer is absent, evasive or incomplete. Connecticut adds a party who "has intentionally answered them falsely or in a manner calculated to mislead" — bad faith named expressly, as a ground in its own right.
It also constrains the remedy in a way no other state does: any order must be proportional to the noncompliance.
The grounds
Conn. Practice Book § 13-14(a):
If any party has failed to answer interrogatories or to answer them fairly, or has intentionally answered them falsely or in a manner calculated to mislead, or has failed to respond to requests for production or for disclosure of the existence and contents of an insurance policy or the limits thereof, or has failed to submit to a physical or mental examination, or has failed to comply with a discovery order made pursuant to Section 13-13, or has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13-15, or has failed to appear and testify at a deposition duly noticed pursuant to this chapter, or has failed otherwise substantially to comply with any other discovery order made pursuant to Sections 13-6 through 13-11, the judicial authority may, on motion, make such order proportional to the noncompliance as the ends of justice require.
| Ground | |
|---|---|
| Failed to answer interrogatories | the ordinary case |
| Failed to answer them fairly | Connecticut's equivalent of the evasive-answer rule |
| Intentionally answered falsely or in a manner calculated to mislead | bad faith, named |
| Failed to respond to requests for production | |
| Failed to disclose the existence and contents of an insurance policy or its limits | a named category |
| Failed to submit to a physical or mental examination | |
| Failed to comply with a § 13-13 discovery order | |
| Failed to comply with § 13-15 — the continuing duty to disclose | |
| Failed to appear and testify at a duly noticed deposition | |
| Failed otherwise substantially to comply with any other discovery order under §§ 13-6 to 13-11 | the catch-all |
Three of these deserve attention.
"To answer them fairly" does the work that "evasive or incomplete" does elsewhere, and it is a broader formulation — fairness rather than completeness.
Insurance disclosure is a named ground. Connecticut singles out the existence, contents and limits of an insurance policy, so a failure there does not have to be shoehorned into a general category.
§ 13-15 is the continuing duty. A party whose earlier response has become incomplete owes an update, and failing to give one is a ground here.
Proportionality is written into the remedy
The end of (a): the court may "make such order proportional to the noncompliance as the ends of justice require."
That phrase governs everything in (b). A request for dismissal over a single late interrogatory answer runs directly into it — and, on the other side, it is the answer to an opponent seeking a case-ending sanction for a modest lapse.
Frame the motion around the proportion: what was withheld, what it cost, and what order matches it.
The orders available
§ 13-14(b):
Such orders may include the following:
(1) An order of compliance; (2) The award to the discovering party of the costs of the motion, including a reasonable attorney's fee; (3) The entry of an order that the matters regarding which the discovery was sought or other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order; (4) The entry of an order prohibiting the party who has failed to comply from introducing designated matters in evidence; (5) An order of dismissal, nonsuit or default.
Note where the fees sit. In most states a fee award is a separate provision with its own mandatory or discretionary language. In Connecticut it is item (2) on the menu of sanctions — one of the orders the court may make, subject to the same proportionality test.
That has a practical consequence: ask for it expressly. There is no default award to fall back on.
Item (5) includes nonsuit alongside dismissal and default, reflecting Connecticut's terminology.
Objecting is not optional
§ 13-14(c):
The failure to comply as described in this section may not be excused on the ground that the discovery is objectionable unless written objection as authorized by Sections 13-6 through 13-11 has been filed.
Silence is not a defense. The objection must have been filed in writing under the relevant section. This is the movant's strongest point against a party that simply did nothing — and the reason to put something on file inside the response period.
Note that Connecticut requires a filed written objection, not merely an application for a protective order.
The electronically stored information safe harbor
§ 13-14(d):
The failure to comply as described in this section shall be excused and the judicial authority may not impose sanctions on a party for failure to provide information, including electronically stored information, lost as the result of the routine, good-faith operation of a system or process in the absence of a showing of intentional
Two features make Connecticut's version stronger than the federal one. The failure "shall be excused" — mandatory, not discretionary. And the court "may not impose sanctions" absent the showing the subsection goes on to require.
The protection is for routine, good-faith operation of a system or process. It does not reach deletion once a preservation obligation had attached.
Where this sits in a Connecticut case
Connecticut's pleadings are strictly ordered, and the motion to strike occupies the place a motion to dismiss holds elsewhere — see the Connecticut motion to strike.
If a default has been entered against you, note that Connecticut sets it aside automatically once you file, provided judgment has not been rendered — see setting aside a Connecticut default.
How Connecticut compares
| Connecticut | New York | Massachusetts | Federal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Named device | order for compliance, § 13-14 | motion to compel | motion to compel | motion to compel |
| Misleading answers a named ground | yes | no | no | no |
| Insurance disclosure a named ground | yes | no | no | no |
| Sanction must be proportional | yes, expressly | no | no | no |
| Fees | one of the listed sanctions | separate provision | separate provision | separate provision |
| Objection excuses non-response | no, unless filed in writing | — | no, unless a protective order sought | no |
| ESI safe harbor | yes, mandatory | — | yes | yes |
A short checklist
- Identify the ground precisely. "Failed to answer fairly" and "answered in a manner calculated to mislead" are separate from a plain failure to answer.
- Check the insurance disclosure — it is a named ground of its own.
- Check § 13-15 if an earlier answer has gone stale; the continuing duty is enforceable here.
- Ask for costs and fees expressly. They are item (2) on the sanctions menu, not an automatic award.
- Frame the order you want as proportional to what was withheld.
- Point to § 13-14(c) where no written objection was filed.
- If you are defending an ESI gap, use § 13-14(d) — the excuse is mandatory for routine, good-faith operation.
- Do not over-ask. Proportionality cuts against a dismissal request for a small lapse.
Where these rules live
- Conn. Practice Book § 13-6 — Interrogatories; In General
- Conn. Practice Book § 13-9 — Requests for Production
- Conn. Practice Book § 13-13 — Order for Compliance
- Conn. Practice Book § 13-14 — Order for Compliance; Failure To Answer or Comply with Order
- Conn. Practice Book § 13-15 — Continuing Duty to Disclose
This page explains what the Practice Book says. It isn't legal advice, and what makes a sanction proportional is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.