Estate of Bochicchio v. Quinn
46 A.3d 239
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Estate of Donna Bochicchio seeks bill of discovery against two Superior Court judges arising from a fatal 2005 shooting during a family dissolution proceeding.
- Plaintiff sought to depose officials to obtain information about courthouse security and marshals’ management in Middletown.
- Claims commissioner authorized written interrogatories; deposition was denied by the commissioner, who authorized interrogatories instead.
- Trial court dismissed the bill of discovery under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, citing potential future use of depositions and impact on judicial duties.
- Plaintiff argued sovereign immunity does not apply because this action seeks only testimony; defendants argued immunity applies and exhaustion of administrative remedies is required; court concluded exhaustion required and declined to reach sovereignty issues.
- Proceedings before the claims commissioner remained ongoing; potential for further relief through administrative review under the statutory scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does sovereign immunity apply to a bill of discovery? | Bochicchio estate argues immunity does not apply since relief is testimony. | State argues immunity applies because disclosures affect the state and the process involves defense of the state. | Sovereign immunity applies; court declines to decide this due to exhaustion. |
| Has plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies before the claims commissioner? | Plaintiff contends administrative path unnecessary for discovery. | Exhaustion required before court can hear an action against the state. | Plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies; court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Is the bill of discovery a collateral attack on the commissioner’s decision? | Plaintiff asserts independent action for discovery separate from commissioner’s process. | Collection of information is within the commissioner’s procedural framework; premature direct challenge not allowed. | Issue not necessary to resolve because exhaustion governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186 (Conn. 2010) (state unconstrained if not affected by judgment; immunity not waived otherwise)
- Lyon v. Jones, 291 Conn. 384 (Conn. 2009) (claims against state require statutory waiver or excess of authority/constitutional statute)
- Martinez v. Dept. of Public Safety, 263 Conn. 74 (Conn. 2003) (claims commissioner authorization to sue state; waives immunity in authorized action)
- Doe v. Heintz, 204 Conn. 17 (Conn. 1987) (exhaust administrative remedies before seeking state-related relief; court dismissal when not done)
- Perrone v. State, 122 Conn. App. 391 (Conn. App. 2010) (administrative appeal of commissioner decisions governed by legislature; exhaustion principle)