331 Conn. 711
Conn.2019Background
- Salinas, a Florida-based appraiser, prepared two appraisal reports (2010, 2011) for a nonparty bank concerning property later subject to a 2012 tax appeal in Connecticut.
- During the tax appeal, the Town of Redding obtained Salinas’ reports and sought to depose him in Florida to explore discrepancies between his valuations and others; Redding Life and the bank objected.
- The Connecticut trial court denied Salinas’ motion for a protective order and ordered the deposition to proceed (with fees and reasonable protective measures), though no deposition ever occurred.
- Salinas filed a writ of error with the Connecticut Supreme Court challenging the denial; the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Appellate Court, which denied the Town’s motion to dismiss and granted the writ, announcing a new qualified privilege for unretained experts and remanding for further proceedings.
- The Town petitioned for certification to the Supreme Court, which granted review limited to whether Connecticut recognizes a qualified unretained-expert testimonial privilege, its scope, and whether the Supreme Court may grant certification to appeal from the Appellate Court’s decision on a transferred writ of error.
- The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction to grant certification but concluded the Appellate Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the underlying discovery order was not an appealable final judgment under Curcio; it reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the writ of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Salinas) | Defendant's Argument (Town) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Supreme Court retain authority to grant certification from an Appellate Court judgment on a writ of error transferred from the Supreme Court? | Transfer divested the Supreme Court; no statutory route to review the transferred matter. | §51-199 gives the Supreme Court final, conclusive jurisdiction over writs of error; §51-197f’s “appeal” includes transferred writs. | Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant certification; Appellate Court judgment on a transferred writ is tantamount to an appeal for §51-197f purposes. |
| Was the trial court’s order denying the protective order a final, appealable judgment under Curcio’s first prong (terminated separate and distinct proceeding)? | The order was final and definite; Salinas, a nonparty, faced no further proceedings in Connecticut affecting him. | The deposition order was interlocutory and tied to the underlying case; not sufficiently definite as to specific questions. | No—order was not sufficiently definite, specific, or comprehensive; first prong not satisfied. |
| Was the order appealable under Curcio’s second prong (so concludes rights that further proceedings cannot affect)? | Connecticut courts cannot hold Salinas in contempt because subpoena/deposition were in Florida, so further proceedings cannot affect him. | Because Salinas sought relief in Connecticut, Connecticut courts can adjudicate and may initiate contempt proceedings; he can appeal from a contempt finding. | No—further proceedings (including potential contempt proceedings arising from invoking Connecticut’s jurisdiction) could affect Salinas; second prong not satisfied. |
| Should the Court decide whether to recognize a qualified privilege for unretained experts? | Salinas sought protection based on such a privilege. | Town opposed creating such a privilege in these circumstances. | Court declined to decide the privilege question because the writ should be dismissed for lack of a final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (Conn.) (sets two-prong test for when interlocutory orders are immediately appealable)
- Abreu v. Leone, 291 Conn. 332 (Conn.) (discovery order final when specific questions were propounded and court made unequivocal rulings)
- Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, 305 Conn. 750 (Conn.) (discovery order appealable where it was clear, definite, and not intertwined with underlying case)
- Niro v. Niro, 314 Conn. 62 (Conn.) (interlocutory discovery order not final where information sought was intertwined with underlying dissolution proceeding)
- McConnell v. McConnell, 316 Conn. 504 (Conn.) (clarifies Curcio analysis: focus on whether information is required to resolve underlying action)
- Lougee v. Grinnell, 216 Conn. 483 (Conn.) (discovery proceeding in Connecticut was the sole judicial proceeding and thus final under Curcio)
- State v. Skipwith, 326 Conn. 512 (Conn.) (discusses writs of error as part of Supreme Court jurisdiction and §51-199 transfer authority)