Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries of those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

When José Soriano Jimenez, who had been injured in a car crash, went to give a deposition in his lawsuit against the other driver, he didn’t expect to be asked questions about his immigration status. Jimenez’s attorney objected to those inquiries and, in a recent ruling, a Superior Court judge prohibited any questions about whether Jimenez is in the country legally or not.

Jimenez sued Christopher Brooks in 2014, claiming Brooks rear-ended his vehicle on Route 7 in Brookfield in November 2012. Jimenez claims he suffered injuries to his neck, back and hips. The case, which also names the owner of the vehicle Christopher Brooks was driving, Mark Brooks, as a defendant, is slated to go to trial in May in Litchfield Superior Court.

At a pre-trial deposition in January, the Brooks’ legal counsel asked Jimenez, who was born in Mexico and came to the United States in 2001, questions about whether he is in the country legally, if he has a Social Security card and if he pays taxes to the United States government, court documents show.

Jimenez moved for a protective order barring any “immigration status” questions. The defendants countered that the questions could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and some of the questions could pertain to Jimenez’s credibility.

In an 18-page decision issued in March, Superior Court Judge John Moore granted the protective order, and ordered the defendants not to inquire about Jimenez’s immigration status. Moore suggested the line of questioning was intended to intimidate Jiminez into accepting a smaller settlement than he otherwise might have. “Even assuming arguendo that the information sought to be obtained was marginally relevant, the court finds … that the chilling and prejudicial effect on the plaintiff’s constitutional right to bring a personal injury claim, regardless of his immigration status, far outweighs any limited relevance,” Moore wrote.

Moore’s decision notes that under the state Constitution, access to courts does not depend on alienage or citizenship. The judge also noted that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection under the law to every person, regardless of citizenship.

According to Moore, inquiries into immigration status “can exert an insidious chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional right to seek redress for claims in our court system.”

Attorney Patricia Cruz Fragoso, of Ventura, Ribeiro & Smith in Danbury, who represents Jimenez, declined to comment on the ruling, citing pending litigation. The defendants are represented by the Law Offices of James Pickett of Rocky Hill. Attorney Ronald Lindlauf, who is handling the case for the firm, could not be reached for comment.

Multiple Surnames

According to the decision, when Jimenez arrived for his deposition, he needed an English interpreter. His attorney claims he was then asked questions which “transformed a deposition concerning a motor vehicle accident into an immigration status interrogation,” the ruling shows.

The defense countered that the plaintiff initially had made a claim of lost wages and used multiple surnames, so it should be able to inquire about immigration status, tax payments and issues concerning his identity and his possession of identification documents. Specifically, Jimenez was asked if he paid taxes and questioned about what identifying documents supported his Maryland driver’s license.

Moore cited one of the defense questions, “When you came into the United States, where did you come in?” The judge called this an “inappropriate” question which was repeated over the plaintiff’s counsel’s objections. Moore wrote this “leaves a strong impression that that question was meant to harass the plaintiff.”

The judge acknowledged that civil defendants have a constitutional right to discovery, and that there were questions in the case about the about the manner in which the accident took place and the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s economic and non-economic damages. But, the judge said, discovery procedures “are not intended to be used as tools to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the party who is the subject of a discovery procedure.”

“Questions concerning the manner in which the plaintiff came into this country, whether or not he is in the country legally, whether he has a visa or green card …. are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence concerning the matters at issue,” Moore wrote.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.

Source: CT Law Tribune