Niro v. Niro, 314 Conn. 62

This case concerns a discovery order in a dissolution action and whether the resulting discovery order is an appealable final judgment under Curcio.
The plaintiff nonparties seek appellate review of a trial court order requiring production of personal records; the order arises from a discovery motion intertwined with the underlying action.
The majority distinguishes Woodbury Knoll to hold the order not a final judgment; the concurrence contends Woodbury Knoll should be overruled and that the order is appealable under Woodbury Knoll’s framework.
The concurrence argues that Woodbury Knoll applies when a nonparty challenges a clear, definite discovery order based on a final ruling, with no further proceedings in the underlying action required for resolution.
The concurrence rejects the broad notion that discovery orders can routinely be appealed immediately and emphasizes counterbalancing public policy factors and the risk to client confidences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discovery order is an appealable final judgment under Curcio	Niro contends Woodbury Knoll controls; order is final and separable from the dissolution action.	Majority says order is intertwined with the underlying action and not a separate final judgment.	No; order is not appealable under Curcio.
Whether Woodbury Knoll should be overruled and applied to make the discovery order appealable	Woodbury Knoll correctly recognizes a final judgment when the party is a nonparty and the order is definitive.	Woodbury Knoll misinterprets Abreu and overexpands the exception to final judgments.	Woodbury Knoll should be overruled.
If Woodbury Knoll is overruled, do Curcio prudential limits still preclude immediate appeal here	Order is clearly final and intertwined, warranting immediate review to avoid piecemeal appeals.	There are no counterbalancing policies; discovery orders should generally not be immediately appealable.	Order remains non-appealable under the current standard; no final judgment.

Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, 305 Conn. 750 (2012) (discovery order final judgment when nonparty to underlying action and order is clear and definite)
Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332 (2009) (discovery order final judgment where separate proceeding; counterbalancing factors)
Lougee v. Grinnell, 216 Conn. 483 (1990) (deposition subpoena appealable when separate proceeding terminated the order)
Briggs v. McWeeny, 260 Conn. 296 (2002) (disqualification order may be final judgment when intertwined but separate issue)
Barbato v. J. & M. Corp., 194 Conn. 245 (1984) (limits on immediate appeal from discovery pending final judgment)
Presidential Capital Corp. v. Reale, 240 Conn. 623 (1997) (contemplated limits on appeals from discovery findings; contempt route)