Opinion
No. CV06-5000857S
April 3, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DISCOVERY AND PRODUCTION
This is a series of objections that were heard from the short calendar of March 10, 2008 involving interrogatories and requests for production from the plaintiff to the four defendants named in this action. Oral argument was held on the above date and short memos were submitted by the various parties.
This is a medical malpractice case involving the prescription of Lithium to the plaintiff.
These objections go back to various dates in May of 2006.
A trial date has been assigned to this claim for December of 2008. This Court adopts the general philosophy of Chapter 13 of the Practice Book in that discovery and production should be allowed where it appears to reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in any particular matter. Further the Court adopts in part the underlying thinking of the case of Blake v. Bridgeport Hospital et al., 200 Conn.SUPER.LEXIS 316 (Sheldon, J.). That court adopted the general thinking of the Baxter case ( Baxter v. Cardiology Associates of New Haven, P.C., 46 Conn.App. 377 (1997)). The court in that case held that the plaintiff should be notified "at the earliest possible opportunity of the defendant's intention to defend itself at trial by proving that the negligence of another defendant, or of any settled or released person, contributed materially to the production of the plaintiff's injuries."
"Our system of discovery," the Baxter Court declared, "is designed to make available information that is reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence concerning the respective positions of the parties . . . A litigation strategy that features surprise to the adversary is no longer tolerated." Id. (quoting Young v. Latta, 123 N.J. 584, 597, 589 A.2d 1020 (1991)). "[A] plaintiff should know as early in the case as possible whether a defendant will seek to prove the fault of a co-defendant . . . A defendant who produces an expert report (whether its own or that of another party) [*5] and fails to allege well before trial the causative fault of a co-defendant may be precluded from asserting at trial that co-defendant's fault in the event of a settlement." Baxter v. Cardiology Associates of New Haven, P.C., supra, 46 Conn.App. at 385 (quoting Young v. Latta, supra, 123 N.J. at 597). "Trial courts should not countenance-that is, the court should not permit the non-settler to wait until the last minute before alerting the court and the plaintiff's lawyer that the settler's conduct will be at issue . . . Tactics cannot be allowed to fail discovery . . ." Id. (quoting Young v. Latta, supra, 123 N.J. at 597-98).
The Court makes the following rulings based on that underlying philosophy and in the sequence of filings:
(a) On the objections by defendants Howard N. Krieger, Ph.D., and his employer Connecticut Resource Group, LLC, the Court finds that the objection to Interrogatory #14 directed to the Connecticut Resource Group is overruled, calling for a yes or no answer and the follow up Interrogatory #15 by way of explanation, the Court overrules the objection as to subparagraphs 15a and 15c and sustains the objection to subparagraphs 15b and 15d. Further ruling as to Interrogatory 16 is that the use of the word "criticism" is overly broad and, therefore, the interrogatory needs to be more specifically stated as to time, place and person. Therefore, the objection is sustained as to #16 and as to follow-up Interrogatory #17 the objection is sustained.
As to the request for Production #1, the objection as to the entire insurance policy is sustained. However, all defendants will disclose the declaration page(s) and related data to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must show a specific reason for disclosure of the entire policy before any of the defendants must comply with that request for production.
The second set of objections relate to Howard N. Krieger, Ph.D. The objections to Interrogatories #41 and #42 correspond to the earlier interrogatories propounded to Connecticut Resource Group. The ruling is the same in that objection to #41 is overruled and as to the follow-up Interrogatory #42, the objection is overruled as to subparagraphs 42a and 42c and is sustained as to subparagraphs 42b and 42d. As to Interrogatories #43 and #44 the objection is sustained in that the use of the word "criticism" is too broad and requires further definition for meaningful disclosure.
The defendant's objections to Interrogatories #28, #29, #30 and #31 are overruled, but responses are limited to ten (10) years back from date of this order. The request for production #3 as it relates to testimony involving cases in which Dr. Krieger has testified at trial and/or by deposition the objection is overruled, but such production will be limited to ten (10) years back from the date of this order and not include any privileged, sealed or confidential files or reports.
On the objections of Dr. Caffrey, Interrogatories #47 through #50, these rulings parallel the prior rulings in that the objection to #47 is overruled, and the objections to subparagraphs 48a and 48c are overruled and sustained as to subparagraphs b and d. As to Interrogatory #49 and #50 the objections are sustained in that the phrase "criticism" is overly broad and not likely to lead to admissible evidence.
As to the fourth defendant, Franklin Medical Group, the objection to Interrogatory in #10 is overruled, but the scope of such inquiry concerning prior malpractice suits is limited to ten (10) years back from this decision's date and such disclosure must have material relevance to the pending matter.
All of the above orders are hereby entered without prejudice to any of the parties to this action or to any parties so joined. If any objections have not been addressed, then those particular interrogatories and corresponding objections can be reclaimed without prejudice by any of the parties.