145 Conn. App. 668
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff sued Sylvester and CCMC entities for alleged Remicade-related injuries to Jonathan Radzik and asserted informed consent and battery claims.
- Plaintiff sought electronic discovery of documents, including Sylvester’s email and computer data, arguing relevance to what Sylvester knew about Remicade-HTCL risks.
- Court allowed limited imaging of three Sylvester computers with protective orders and in camera review for confidentiality.
- Defendants opposed broad imaging of CCMC and St. Francis servers, citing privacy and HIPAA concerns; court did not order those servers’ imaging.
- In July 2012 the court issued a written ruling permitting imaging of three personal computers and appointing a discovery master; plaintiff appealed.
- Issue presented: whether the discovery order is a final judgment subject to immediate appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the discovery order a final judgment under Curcio? | Radzik contends it terminates a separate proceeding. | Defendants argue it is a separate, distinct proceeding seeking nonparty data. | Not a final judgment; Curcio prongs not satisfied. |
| Does the order satisfy Curcio’s second prong, causing irretrievable rights loss? | Rights to obtain relevant electronic evidence may be irretrievably harmed. | Order protects confidentiality; no dissemination unless court review. | Second prong not satisfied; rights not irretrievably lost. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (1983) (two-prong final judgment test for interlocutory orders)
- State v. Fielding, 296 Conn. 26 (2010) (discovery orders and finality analysis)
- Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, 305 Conn. 750 (2012) (nonparty discovery order may be appealable final judgment in special circumstances)
- Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332 (2009) (discovery order against nonparty may be final judgment)
- Ruggiero v. Fuessenich, 237 Conn. 339 (1996) (discovery petition does not create separate proceeding)
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., 279 Conn. 220 (2006) (second prong curio discussion on protected rights)