317 Conn. 313
Conn.2015Background
- Plaintiff Paul Radzik, individually and as administrator of his son Jonathan’s estate, sued Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Dr. Francisco A. Sylvester, and related entities alleging Sylvester’s prescription of Remicade contributed to Jonathan’s fatal lymphoma.
- Plaintiff sought to image and forensically examine the hard drives of three computers used by Sylvester to determine what Sylvester knew and when about risks associated with Remicade.
- Trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to image the computers, require forensic examination by an independent consultant, and appoint a discovery master; it ordered protective measures and required signings of a protective order.
- Defendants appealed the discovery order to the Appellate Court, arguing disclosure would irreparably harm nonparty patient privacy; the Appellate Court dismissed for lack of a final judgment.
- This court granted certification limited to whether nonparty privacy rights were affected; after oral argument the case was remanded for the trial court to clarify whether defendants had an absolute right to redact patient-identifying information before disclosure to the discovery master.
- Trial court clarified it had not originally granted an absolute redaction right but then implemented procedures allowing defendants to redact patient-identifying information prior to providing materials to the discovery master.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s order compelling imaging and forensic review of Sylvester’s computers is a final, appealable judgment | Radzik contended the discovery order was interlocutory and appropriate, with protections in place; appeal not ripe | Defendants argued disclosure to discovery master would irretrievably destroy nonparty patient privacy and thus the order was a final judgment | Court held the discovery order is not a final judgment under Curcio; with added redaction protections, irreparable privacy harm was not shown and the Curcio exceptions were not met |
| Whether the order terminated a separate and distinct proceeding (Curcio prong 1) | Radzik: no; discovery is part of ongoing litigation | Defendants: imaging effectively terminates privacy protections and is a distinct proceeding | Court held Curcio prong 1 not satisfied; order did not commence or terminate a separate proceeding |
| Whether the order so concluded rights that further proceedings cannot affect them (Curcio prong 2) | Radzik: defendants’ rights could still be protected and altered by subsequent proceedings | Defendants: once data seen by discovery master, confidentiality is lost and cannot be restored | Court held Curcio prong 2 not satisfied, particularly after trial court’s redaction protocol made irreparable loss unlikely |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists despite interlocutory nature based on extraordinary circumstances | Radzik: no extraordinary circumstances shown | Defendants: privacy concerns are extraordinary and justify immediate appeal | Court held no extraordinary circumstances; appeal must await final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Niro v. Niro, 314 Conn. 62 (2014) (standards for plenary review of subject matter jurisdiction)
- State v. Grotton, 180 Conn. 290 (1980) (general rule that discovery orders are not final judgments)
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (two-prong test for interlocutory orders to be treated as final)
- Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, 305 Conn. 750 (2012) (discovery orders ordinarily do not meet Curcio exceptions)
- Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332 (2009) (rejecting interlocutory appeal of discovery order absent extraordinary circumstances)
- BNY Western Trust v. Roman, 295 Conn. 194 (2010) (lack of final judgment is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal)