The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Sandy Hook families can ask gunmaker about its policies
Judge rules against Remington
NEWTOWN — Remington executives will have to answer questions under oath about their internal operations and policies from lawyers representing 10 Sandy Hook families in their longstanding wrongful death lawsuit.
A Superior Court judge this week permitted the 10 families suing Remington over the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to ask the gunmaker’s executives questions that Remington considers invasive and improper.
Both sides are preparing for a 2021 trial in what has become the nation’s highest profile case of families suing a gunmaker over a mass killing.
“We look forward to gaining more substantial access to Remington’s internal documents and marketing materials,” said the families’ lead attorney, Josh Koskoff, on Tuesday.
The latest development in the pretrial battle between families who lost loved ones in the shooting and the nation’s oldest gunmaker gets to the heart of the lawsuit.
The families are trying to prove Remington violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act by recklessly marketing its AR-15-style rifle to civilians.
Remington counterargues that Adam Lanza — and not the gunmaker’s marketing department — was responsible for the crime.
In a lengthy motion last month, Remington argued its internal corporate procedures were not subject to the families’ review because the insider information was protected by case law.
But Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis disagreed, ruling on Monday, “The motion for protective order, seeking to preclude the deposition of the corporate designee, is denied.”
Bellis did not elaborate.
Paul Williams, one of Remington’s lead attorneys, declined to comment on Tuesday.
The development represents another victory for the 10 families in their uphill fight to hold the gunmaker liable for the slaying of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook.
Remington started with the momentum.
The company initially prevailed with the argument that it manufactured a legal gun that was distributed legally and sold legally to Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza. Remington further argued it was protected under a 2005 federal law that shields the firearms industry from most types of liability when a person misuses a firearm.
In 2016, Bellis agreed with Remington, throwing the families’ case out of court.
But in 2019, the state Supreme Court reversed part of Bellis’ decision, ruling, “(I)t falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at (Remington’s) feet.”
In November, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Remington’s appeal, clearing the way for trial in 2021.
“We are pleased that the court rejected the latest in a long line of tactics Remington has tried to avoid scrutiny of its business practices,” Koskoff said Tuesday. “These legal maneuvers, designed to test the resolve and patience of the families, only have the opposite effect.”