186 Conn. App. 722
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Postdissolution custody dispute between David Ravalese and Kimberly Ravalese involved multiple court proceedings and a guardian ad litem; psychologist Joanne Lertora provided therapy to the minor child (2004–2010).
- Kimberly’s attorney requested Lertora prepare a report summarizing clinical observations and custody/visitation recommendations; both parents signed an agreement authorizing disclosure to counsel and the guardian ad litem.
- Lertora produced and delivered the report to Kimberly and her attorney before a June 2, 2010 family court hearing; the report discussed alleged abuse, diagnosed a personality disorder, and recommended visitation limitations.
- The report was not admitted at the July 8, 2010 hearing because the guardian ad litem asserted psychologist–patient privilege; later, Kimberly allegedly submitted the report to the Statewide Grievance Committee in 2011 (which Lertora denies authorizing).
- Ravalese sued Lertora for defamation in May 2013; the trial court granted Lertora’s summary judgment motion, ruling both that the statements were absolutely privileged (litigation privilege) and that the action was time-barred; Ravalese appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lertora’s report is protected by absolute immunity (litigation privilege) | Report not court-ordered, not admitted, and provided beyond agreed recipients → not litigation-related | Prepared at counsel’s request to aid court/guardian ad litem in custody litigation; thus privileged | Court: Report was prepared for litigation purposes and is absolutely privileged; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Lertora is liable for later dissemination of the report to grievance committee | Lertora should be liable because Kimberly republished the report to the committee | Lertora did not authorize or participate in that dissemination and had no knowledge of it | Court: No evidence Lertora published to grievance committee; she is not liable |
| Whether the defamation claim is timely under § 52‑597 (two-year statute) | Action filed May 2013; plaintiff contends actionable publication includes later grievance submission | Only actionable publication by Lertora occurred by June 2, 2010, more than two years before suit | Court: Claim barred by statute of limitations even if privilege did not apply |
| Whether preparatory communications intended for judicial use qualify for absolute immunity | (Subsidiary) Litigation privilege should not cover preliminary materials not filed with court | Preparatory communications aimed at assisting judicial decisionmakers are covered by the privilege | Court: Relevancy test is generous; preparatory materials sufficiently related to custody issues are privileged |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (2013) (discusses Connecticut’s litigation privilege/absolute immunity)
- Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821 (2007) (defines relevancy test and scope of absolute immunity for judicial proceedings)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616 (2013) (public policy rationale for absolute immunity to encourage candor in judicial processes)
- Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549 (1992) (absolute privilege applies to writings prepared for submission to quasi‑judicial bodies)