NIRO v. NIRO—CONCURRENCE
Supreme Court of Connecticut
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
This court has consistently held that ‘‘[a]n order issued upon a motion for discovery is ordinarily not
This court, however, has recognized that appeals from discovery disputes ‘‘are more fact specific than would appear at first blush’’; Abreu v. Leone, supra, 291 Conn. 346; and thus has articulated certain limited exceptions to this general rule precluding interlocutory appeals from discovery orders. Id., 346–47; Lougee v. Grinnell, 216 Conn. 483, 486–87, 582 A.2d 456 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Salmon, 250 Conn. 147, 154–55, 735 A.2d 333 (1999) (en banc).
For example, in Lougee v. Grinnell, supra, 216 Conn. 487, this court concluded that the trial court’s denial of a nonparty witness’ motion to quash a subpoena to appear at a deposition in Connecticut regarding a Texas civil action was an appealable final judgment under the first prong of Curcio. In Lougee, the underlying action had been filed in Texas against the American Tobacco Company (American) by the respondent, Jeannie B. Grinnell. Id., 484–85. After the commencement of the action, Grinnell sought to depose the petitioner, Virginius B. Lougee, a former chief executive officer of American. Id. After the Texas trial court determined that American could not be compelled to produce Lougee, Grinnell obtained an order from the Texas court commissioning a Connecticut notary public to depose Lougee as a material witness in Connecticut. Id., 485–86. The trial court in Connecticut thereafter authorized the issuance of a subpoena compelling Lougee’s appearance. Lougee unsuccessfully moved to quash the subpoena in the trial court, and subsequently appealed from that court’s order. Id., 486.
On appeal, this court concluded that the appeal fell within the first prong of Curcio because the separate and distinct judicial proceeding concerning Grinnell’s deposition subpoena had terminated when the trial court issued the order that was appealed. Id., 487. In support of its conclusion, this court focused on the Connecticut trial court proceeding on Lougee’s motion, rather than the Texas litigation, and recognized that ‘‘the sole judicial proceeding instituted in Connecticut concerned the propriety of Grinnell’s deposition subpoena, a proceeding that will not result in a later judgment from which [Lougee] can then appeal. . . . Because the separate and distinct judicial proceeding concerning Grinnell’s deposition subpoena terminated when the trial court issued the orders appealed, Lougee has appealed from a final judgment . . . .’’ (Citations
This court established another exception in Abreu v. Leone, supra, 291 Conn. 334. The genesis of the appeal in Abreu began when the defendant sought permission from the Claims Commissioner to bring an action against the Department of Children and Families (department) for personal injuries allegedly inflicted by the plaintiff’s foster child. Pursuant to that action, the defendant issued the plaintiff a notice of deposition and a subpoena duces tecum, apparently seeking information about the foster child. Id., 334–35. The plaintiff then filed an action seeking to quash the subpoena issued in the proceeding before the Claims Commissioner on the ground that he was prohibited, under
On appeal to this court, we reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court, and concluded that the trial court’s order compelling the plaintiff to answer the defendant’s questions was an appealable final judgment under the first prong of Curcio. Id., 341. There were three primary reasons supporting our decision. First, unlike the situations in Barbato v. J. & M. Corp., supra, 194 Conn. 248, and Presidential Capital Corp. v. Reale, supra, 240 Conn. 633, there were no further proceedings before the trial court because the court had ordered the plaintiff to provide specific information and the plaintiff had clearly refused to provide that information.1 Abreu v. Leone, supra, 291 Conn. 346. Therefore, ‘‘[i]n essence, the defendant [was] forcing the plaintiff to be held in contempt.’’ Id., 347. Second, the particular facts and circumstances of the case presented a ‘‘counterbalancing factor’’ that weighed against the policies underlying the final judgment rule, namely, the prevention of piecemeal appeals and the conservation of judicial resources. Id., 347. Specifically, the court noted that to hold the plaintiff in contempt ‘‘would discourage participation by otherwise willing foster parents and thus undermine the goals of that system,’’ while forcing him to answer the questions would subject his foster child to ‘‘embarrassment, stigmatization and emotional harm.’’ Id., 348. Third, the motion to quash was the sole judicial proceeding at issue in the case and the only legal proceeding from which
In addition to these cases, to put the issue before us in its proper context, we also briefly address this court’s decision in Briggs v. McWeeny, 260 Conn. 296, 796 A.2d 516 (2002). In Briggs, this court concluded that a trial court’s order disqualifying counsel for the plaintiff school board from representing the plaintiff in pending litigation due to certain misconduct in that litigation constituted a final judgment under the first prong of Curcio. Id., 314. Although the fact that the litigation continued unimpeded following the sanction indicated that the order terminated a separate and distinct proceeding, the court considered Judge McWeeny’s contention that the misconduct ‘‘was so intertwined with the central issue in the [pending] litigation . . . that the disqualification order could not be considered separate and distinct from the main proceeding.’’ Id. The court rejected that contention, reasoning that the focus of the disqualification proceeding was on a different issue than the one raised in the litigation and pointing to the fact that the sanction took effect immediately. Id., 316.
Finally, I turn to Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, supra, 305 Conn. 750, which presents the crux of my disagreement with the majority’s reasoning in the present case. In Woodbury Knoll, the plaintiffs in the underlying action hired the plaintiff in error, Finn, Dixon & Herling, LLP (Finn Dixon), to bring a legal malpractice action against the defendants in error, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, and Carolyn Cavolo, for negligent representation in failing to discover fraudulent conduct in connection with certain real estate transactions. Id., 752–53. In the malpractice action, the plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants’ negligent representation, the plaintiffs were subject to numerous foreclosure actions and related legal proceedings in which Finn Dixon represented them. Id., 753. As a result, the plaintiffs allegedly ‘‘incurred damages of $4,288,674.60, which consisted of settlement payments in the amount of $2,917,000 and attorney’s fees paid to Finn Dixon in the amount of $1,371,647.60, for which they [sought] reimbursement from the defendants.’’ Id.
The defendants subsequently served a notice of deposition and a subpoena duces tecum on the custodian of Finn Dixon’s records, seeking information to substantiate
Thereafter, Finn Dixon brought a writ of error to this court, claiming that the trial court improperly denied its motion to quash. Id. As a jurisdictional matter, this court concluded that the trial court’s discovery order was an appealable final judgment under the first prong of Curcio because it arose out of a separate proceeding brought by a nonparty to the underlying action. Id., 762. In support of this conclusion, the court first noted that the circumstances in that case were governed by Abreu v. Leone, supra, 291 Conn. 332, and that the situation was identical in all material respects to Abreu. Woodbury Knoll, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, supra, 305 Conn. 757, 761. The court then reasoned that, like the appellant in Abreu, Finn Dixon ‘‘challenged a clear and definite discovery order, which was based on the trial court’s final and comprehensive ruling, and [Finn Dixon] perfected the record for appeal. . . . Under these circumstances, there are no further proceedings before the Superior Court involving the [person or persons subject to the discovery order] because the questions have been propounded and the trial court has unequivocally ruled what must occur, that is, the discovery order must be complied with, which, in turn, terminates a separate and distinct proceeding.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 761. The court further reasoned that ‘‘in both cases, the appellant or plaintiff in error is a nonparty to the underlying action. In Abreu, the nonparty foster parent challenged, as a plaintiff in a separate proceeding, a discovery order that arose in a case between two other parties. . . . Similarly in the present case, Finn Dixon is not involved in any way with the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Finn Dixon is involved only insofar as its records custodian has been ordered to comply with the discovery order.’’ (Citation omitted.) Id., 761–62. In light of these circumstances, the court held that ‘‘[f]or these reasons alone, then, the discovery order in the present case is a final judgment because it satisfies the first prong of Curcio, just as the discovery order in Abreu constituted a final judgment because it arose out of a separate proceeding brought by a nonparty.’’ Id., 762.
The court then went on to note that, as in Abreu, there were compelling policy reasons why Finn Dixon should not be required to be held in contempt in order to appeal from the discovery order. Specifically, this court noted that Finn Dixon had an ethical and professional obligation not to disclose privileged and confidential materials relating to the representation of its clients. Id., 763. The court reasoned that if the discovery order was not immediately appealable, Finn Dixon, as an officer of the court, would be left with a real dilemma: comply with the court order and breach its clients’ privileges and confidences, or defy the court order and be held in contempt, the latter
In sum, Woodbury Knoll held that a discovery order is an appealable final judgment when it is clear and definite, based on a final and comprehensive ruling, and the appellant or plaintiff in error is a nonparty to the underlying action. See id., 761. Furthermore, this rule is not limited to nonparty attorneys because, despite the court’s discussion of Finn Dixon’s professional and ethical obligations to its clients, these policy considerations were extraneous to the court’s conclusion that the discovery order was an appealable final judgment. See id., 762 (‘‘[f]or these reasons alone, then, the discovery order in the present case is a final judgment because it satisfies the first prong of Curcio, just as the discovery order in Abreu constituted a final judgment because it arose out of a separate proceeding brought by a nonparty’’ [emphasis added]).
Turning to the present case, I would conclude that the situation presented here satisfies the rule articulated in Woodbury Knoll. First, the trial court’s order granting the motion filed by the defendant in error, Sandy Niro (defendant), for production of the personal records of the plaintiffs in error, Anthony Niro and Nanette Niro (plaintiffs), was a clear and definite order based upon a final and comprehensive ruling because the information sought had been clearly identified and the plaintiffs had clearly refused to produce it. Second, the plaintiffs are nonparties to the underlying dissolution action because they are ‘‘not involved in any way with the lawsuit between [Peter Niro, Jr., and the defendant].’’ Id.
Faithfully applying the rule in Woodbury Knoll would necessarily require us to conclude that the discovery order in the present case is an appealable final judgment under the first prong of Curcio. The majority, however, avoids this conclusion by distinguishing Woodbury Knoll on a ground not discussed in that case, namely, that the discovery order in Woodbury Knoll was not intertwined with the underlying action. The majority holds that ‘‘[t]he discovery order in the present case, unlike the orders in Woodbury Knoll . . . and Briggs, is intertwined with the underlying dissolution proceeding because the information subject to disclosure will contribute to the trial court’s knowledge of Peter Niro’s assets and its ability to perform its statutory duty of distributing the marital estate pursuant to [General Statutes] § 46b-81.’’ The majority further notes: ‘‘Although the court did not discuss whether the information sought in the discovery order [in Woodbury Knoll] was ‘intertwined’ with the underlying proceeding, we note that, because [the plaintiff in Woodbury Knoll] was seeking damages for expenses already incurred, the court did not need the information subject to the order to resolve the issues in the underlying legal malpractice action. Accordingly, the discovery order in Woodbury Knoll . . . was not intertwined with the underlying proceeding.’’ See footnote 4 of the majority opinion.
The record in Woodbury Knoll does not support that proposition. Instead, it reveals that the discovery order was organically and fundamentally intertwined with the underlying action and that the trial court did require the information to resolve the issues in that case. In its articulation of the legal basis for its discovery order, the trial court in Woodbury Knoll noted ‘‘that the information sought [by the defendants] is essential and cannot be otherwise obtained and that its disclosure can lead to the discovery of information material to the claims and defenses of the
After careful consideration of Woodbury Knoll and the rest of our final judgment jurisprudence, I am convinced that the court in that case misinterpreted the holding of Abreu and, in so doing, unnecessarily expanded a limited exception to create a misleading rule with vast implications. I recognize that ‘‘[t]his court has repeatedly acknowledged the significance of stare decisis to our system of jurisprudence because it gives stability and continuity to our case law.’’ Conway v. Wilton, 238 Conn. 653, 658, 680 A.2d 242 (1996). However, ‘‘[i]t is more important that the court should be right upon later and more elaborate consideration of the cases than consistent with previous declarations. Barden v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 154 U.S. 288, 322, 14 S. Ct. 1030, 38 L. Ed. 992 (1894). [T]here is a well recognized exception to stare decisis under which a court will examine and overrule a prior decision that is clearly wrong. White v. Burns, 213 Conn. 307, 335, 567 A.2d 1195 (1990). In short, consistency must not be the only reason for deciding a case in a particular way, if to do so would be unjust. Consistency obtains its value best when it promotes a just decision. Conway v. Wilton, supra, 662.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Miranda, 274 Conn. 727, 734, 878 A.2d 1118 (2005).
Although this court in Woodbury Knoll relied upon Abreu to articulate the rule that a discovery order is an appealable final judgment under the first prong of Curcio if the order is clear and definite, based on a final and comprehensive ruling, and the appellant or plaintiff in error are nonparties to the underlying action, Abreu is distinguishable from the facts in Woodbury Knoll in two ways. First, although the trial court’s order in Abreu was clear and definite and based upon a final and comprehensive ruling, we emphasized in our reasoning that (1) the plaintiff had instituted an action separate from the underlying proceeding to file his motion to quash, and (2) because the underlying proceeding before the Claims Commissioner was not a judicial proceeding, the plaintiff would not likely have the ability to file a writ of error and the department may never have a right to appeal. See Abreu v. Leone, supra, 291 Conn. 348–49. These concerns were simply not present in Woodbury Knoll, as Finn Dixon challenged the defendants’ subpoena duces tecum within the underlying proceeding
Furthermore, left untouched, the rule articulated in Woodbury Knoll could be applied in a broad manner to allow for immediate appeals of a significant portion of the discovery orders entered by the trial courts in this state. Because this court has indicated that a consideration of the interests of an attorney in preserving the confidential and privileged materials of his or her clients is not necessary to satisfy the first prong of Curcio, it necessarily follows then that any nonparty to an underlying action, upon receiving a clear and definite order in a final and comprehensive ruling, can immediately appeal that order. This notion runs counter to the well established rule that discovery orders do not satisfy the first prong of Curcio because they are not ‘‘severable from the central cause of action so that the main action can proceed independent of the ancillary proceeding.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Abreu v. Leone, supra, 291 Conn. 339; see also Ruggiero v. Fuessenich, 237 Conn. 339, 345–46, 676 A.2d 1367 (1996) (‘‘[a] party to a pending case does not institute a separate and distinct
Having concluded that Woodbury Knoll must be overruled, I consider whether under a proper application of our precedent, the order in the present case satisfies either prong of Curcio. I agree with the majority that the trial court’s discovery order did not arise from a separate and distinct proceeding. Specifically, I would conclude that the personal records and documents to which it was directed are intertwined with the underlying action, as they are required by the trial court to resolve the underlying action. See Briggs v. McWeeny, supra, 260 Conn. 316; cf. Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 285 Conn. 462, 472, 940 A.2d 742 (2008) (concluding that denial of class certification does not constitute termination of separate and distinct proceeding because it is too intertwined with plaintiffs’ cause of action and is order capable of review after final judgment in that action). For this reason alone, the discovery order cannot be severed from the central cause of action so that the main action can proceed independent of the ancillary proceeding. Further, none of the very limited exceptions that this court has developed are applicable to the facts of the present case. The proceeding from which the plaintiffs filed their writ of error is not the sole judicial proceeding instituted in Connecticut that stems from an action in another jurisdiction; see Lougee v. Grinnell, supra, 216 Conn. 486–87; and there are no counterbalancing policy factors present. See Abreu v. Leone, supra, 291 Conn. 347–48. Moreover, ‘‘[i]t is a given that, once disclosed through discovery, information cannot be retrieved. If that fact alone were sufficient to permit an immediate appeal of an order to comply with a discovery request or an order denying a protective order, every reluctant witness could delay trial court proceedings by taking an interlocutory appeal. That is not our law.’’ Presidential Capital Corp. v. Reale, supra, 240 Conn. 629–30. As such, although the potential for unwarranted disclosure and irremediable harm exists in situations like in the present case, where a plaintiff in error has invoked a privilege against complying with a discovery order, unless there is a counterbalancing policy factor present, ‘‘the occasional [improper discovery ruling] that cannot be fully rectified upon review of the final judgment is a lesser evil than that posed by the delay in the progress of cases in the trial court likely to result from interlocutory appeals of disclosure orders.’’ Melia v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 202 Conn. 252, 259, 520 A.2d 605 (1987).
I therefore respectfully concur in the judgment.