2005 Ct. Sup. 9186, 39 CLR 394
No. CV 01 0809087 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
May 26, 2005
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
LAVINE, JUDGE.
A number of motions pertaining to discovery disputes, including a dispute over an ongoing deposition, are before the court. They are defendants’ motions dated December 22, 2004 (Motion # 138); dated February 10, 2005 (Motion #140); dated March 21, 2005 (Motion #141); April 28, 2005 (Motion #146); and plaintiff’s objections of April 8, 2005 (Motions #142, 143 and 144).
Plaintiff claims that defendants were negligent in connection with the postoperative reconstruction care of the plaintiff following reconstructive breast surgery. Counsel put forth their respective positions in their pleadings and during argument on May 23, 2005. The discovery disputes, roughly speaking, relate to two areas of disagreement. First defendants want to obtain plaintiff’s Planned Parenthood records relating to pregnancies, contraception and abortions. Second, noting that plaintiff seeks damages for psychological and/or emotional distress, defendants also seek to obtain various of plaintiff’s psychological records. Plaintiff objects, claiming that most of what is sought is irrelevant, and that much of what is sought is personal and private. The pending motions are granted in part, and denied in part, as indicated.
It is important to remember that what is before the Court is a dispute related to the scope of discovery. Under our rules, broad discovery is permitted. See Practice Book § 13-2, which states in relevant part that “Discovery shall be permitted if the disclosure sought would be of assistance in the prosecution or defense of the action and if it can be provided by the disclosing party or person with substantially greater facility than it could otherwise be obtained by the party seeking disclosure. It shall not be grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Emphasis CT Page 9187 added.)
Having reviewed the written submissions, including plaintiff’s May 20, 2005, brief, and considered the arguments made by counsel, the Court concludes as follows.
With respect to the Planned Parenthood records, defendants’ motions to compel are granted and plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff is ordered to sign the appropriate authorizations and/or turn over the requested records by no later than July 8, 2005. Based on the April 20, 2005 affidavit of Dr. Castiglione asserting that it was important for him, as a plastic surgeon, to know about her prior surgical history, any terminations of pregnancy, any pregnancies, and any use of contraceptives, among other things, in light of the full record, the Court concludes that the Planned Parenthood records contain information “reasonably calculated” to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, the Court agrees that the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest in the subject records. Therefore, plaintiff shall not be required to facilitate disclosure of these records until counsel have agreed upon an appropriate protective order.
With respect to the requested psychological or psychiatric records, the ruling is the same. Defendants’ motions to compel are granted and plaintiff’s objections are overruled. Plaintiff is ordered to sign the appropriate authorizations and/or turn over the requested records by no later than July 8, 2005. By injecting her psychological and/or emotional condition into the case, plaintiff has created the conditions pursuant to which the information sought appears “reasonably calculated” to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Once again, the Court agrees with plaintiff that the records sought involve highly personal and private information. Therefore, plaintiff shall not be required to facilitate disclosure of these records until counsel have agreed upon an appropriate protective order.
The protective orders shall require — among other provisions to be agreed upon by counsel — that the information being produced is being produced for the purpose of discovery and trial, and no other purpose.
The motion to compel of April 26, 2005, relating to the deposition of Candace Bednarz, is granted in part. Ms. Bednarz is ordered to respond to the questions to which objections were CT Page 9188 made, given that the questions appear “reasonably calculated” to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, defendants’ requests for nonsuit to enter, and for costs and expenses, are denied.
Douglas S. Lavine Judge, Superior Court
CT Page 9189