Redding Life Care, LLC v. Town of Redding, SC 20054
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Citation | 207 A.3d 493,331 Conn. 711 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | SC 20054 |
| Parties | REDDING LIFE CARE, LLC v. TOWN OF REDDING |
331 Conn. 711
207 A.3d 493
REDDING LIFE CARE, LLC
v.
TOWN OF REDDING
SC 20054
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued November 14, 2018
Officially released May 21, 2019
Elliott B. Pollack, Hartford, with whom were Michael J. Marafito, Hartford, and, on the brief, Johanna S. Katz, Hartford, for the defendant in error (town of Redding).
Proloy K. Das, Hartford, with whom were Robert E. Kaelin, Hartford, and, on the brief, Melissa A. Federico, for the plaintiff in error (David R. Salinas).
James J. Healy, Hartford, filed a brief for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
Michael R. McPherson, Hartford, filed a brief for the Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
Roderick R. Williams, deputy corporation counsel, filed a brief for the city of New Haven as amicus curiae.
Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, D'Auria, Ecker and Lavine, Js.
D'AURIA, J.
In this certified appeal, we are asked to determine whether there exists either an absolute or qualified testimonial privilege for an unretained expert who previously has rendered an opinion relevant to the issues in a pending case. The defendant in error, the town of Redding (town), appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which granted the writ of error filed by the plaintiff in error, David R. Salinas. In granting the writ, the Appellate Court vacated the trial court's order denying his motion for a protective order that sought to prohibit the town from taking his deposition and ordered the trial court to determine whether Salinas' testimony was privileged under the new, qualified unretained expert privilege that the Appellate Court announced. To reach this issue, however, this court must overcome two jurisdictional hurdles: (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to grant certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's determination of a writ of error, and (2) whether the trial court's ruling constituted an appealable final judgment. Although we determine that we have jurisdiction to grant certification, we nevertheless determine that there was no appealable final judgment.1 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and direct that court on remand to dismiss the writ of error for lack of a final judgment.
The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our review of these claims. In October, 2012, the town assessed real property owned by Redding Life Care, LLC (Redding Life). As a result of that assessment, Redding Life initiated an action against the town to challenge the assessed value of the property
(tax appeal). Prior to the initiation of that action, in 2010 and 2011, Salinas had completed two appraisals of that property on behalf of CapitalSource Bank (bank), a nonparty to the tax appeal, as part of the underwriting process for extending a loan to Redding Life in 2011. In July, 2014, after learning about and obtaining copies of these appraisals through the pretrial discovery process, the town filed a motion for a commission to depose Salinas, who resided in Florida. Redding Life and the bank objected. The trial court, Hon. Arnold W. Aronson , judge trial referee, granted the town's motion.
Subsequently, the town served Salinas with a subpoena compelling him to appear at a deposition scheduled for January, 2015, in Florida. Salinas filed a motion for a protective order in the Connecticut Superior Court seeking to prohibit the town from taking his deposition. He argued that he had not been retained in the tax appeal, did not have any relevant knowledge, and
could not be compelled to testify as an expert because Connecticut law "prohibit[s] the compulsion of such unretained expert testimony." The town objected.
The court denied Salinas' motion and ordered the following: "The deposition shall proceed. The town shall pay the witness his fees and expenses as provided in Practice Book § 13-4 (c) (2). The town shall enter into any reasonable protective order proposed by the witness or the other parties designed to limit the use of the information obtained in the deposition to this case only." Salinas then filed a writ of error with this court seeking appellate review of the trial court's denial of his motion for a protective order. Salinas subsequently filed a motion seeking the following articulation: "Did the trial court conclude that ... Salinas can be compelled under Connecticut law to provide expert witness testimony against his will? If so, what is the basis for that conclusion?" The court responded: "The answer to the first question is no. It was unnecessary to reach
that conclusion because [Salinas] had already authored appraisals that contained his opinions."
The town thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the trial court's discovery order did not constitute an appealable final judgment. This court transferred the matter to the Appellate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c), and that court denied the town's motion to dismiss. Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding , 174 Conn. App. 193, 196, 165 A.3d 180 (2017).
The Appellate Court granted the writ of error and remanded the case to the trial court with direction to vacate the order denying the plaintiff in error's motion for a protective order. Id., at 206, 165 A.3d 180. The Appellate Court based its decision on its creation of a new, qualified unretained expert privilege that it announced. Id., at 205, 165 A.3d 180. In defining the parameters of this privilege, the Appellate Court explained that, on remand, the trial court "should, in determining whether to grant Salinas' motion for a protective order because his testimony is appropriately barred by the qualified unretained expert privilege, consider (1) whether, under the circumstances, he reasonably should have expected that, in the normal course of events, he would be called upon to provide opinion testimony in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether there exists a compelling need for his opinion testimony in this case. Additional considerations may be relevant to the analysis, including, for example, whether he was retained by a party with an eye to the present dispute." Id., at 205–206, 165 A.3d 180.
The town filed a petition for certification to appeal, which we granted, limited to the following issues: "1. Does Connecticut recognize a qualified expert testimonial privilege in pretrial discovery (and at trial) permitting an unretained expert to withhold testimony regarding an opinion that the expert has previously
rendered and documented in a written report? 2. If Connecticut recognizes this privilege, what is its scope? 3. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to grant certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's final determination of a writ of error?" Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding , 327 Conn. 991, 992, 175 A.3d 1247 (2018). Following oral argument, however, this court requested that the parties file supplemental briefs on the issue the Appellate Court had previously passed upon: whether there was an appealable final judgment. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
I
Initially, we must resolve Salinas' challenge to this court's subject matter
jurisdiction to grant certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's judgment on his writ of error, which was originally filed with this court but transferred to the Appellate Court pursuant to § 51-199 (c). We conclude that we have such jurisdiction.
Salinas argues that by transferring the case to the Appellate Court, this court lost jurisdiction over his writ of error. Specifically, he argues that, in the absence of a transfer of the writ of error back to this court, § 51-199 (c) provides no procedure by which this court may later review the Appellate Court's judgment on a transferred writ of error.2 He further contends that even if this court retains jurisdiction over his transferred writ of error, it lacks jurisdiction to grant certification to appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 51-197f because that statute applies only to appeals, not writs of error. The town counters that, pursuant to § 51-199 (a), this court has "final and conclusive" jurisdiction over all
writs of error, even those transferred to the Appellate Court, and that we should interpret the term "appeal" in § 51-197f broadly to encompass the judgment of the Appellate Court on a transferred writ of error. We agree with the town.
"It is axiomatic that, except insofar as the constitution bestows upon this court jurisdiction to hear certain cases ... the subject matter jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and of this court is governed by statute." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Banks v. Thomas , 241...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Strand/BRC Grp. v. Bd. of Representatives of The City of Stamford, SC 20578
...of the Appellate Court if we determine that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction; see, e.g., Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding, 331 Conn. 711, 744, 207 A.3d 493 (2019) (remanding case to Appellate Court to dismiss writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because discovery order was not fin......
-
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Crawford, SC 19903
...intended to preclude reservations in cases in which review is not available after final judgment. In Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding, 331 Conn. 711, 726, 207 A.3d 493 (2019), this court recently concluded that General Statutes § 51-197f, which governs petitions for certification to appeal......
-
Strand/BRC Grp., LLC v. Bd. of Representatives of Stamford, SC 20578
...Appellate Court if we determine that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction; see, e.g., 270 A.3d 64 Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding , 331 Conn. 711, 744, 207 A.3d 493 (2019) (remanding case to Appellate Court to dismiss writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because discovery order was n......
-
Halladay v. Comm'r of Corr., SC 20369
...which this court held discovery orders to be final judgments. In response, the respondent relies on Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding , 331 Conn. 711, 207 A.3d 493 (2019), and argues that the discovery order is not a separate and distinct proceeding under Curcio but, rather, a mere step alo......
-
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Crawford, SC 19903
...intended to preclude reservations in cases in which review is not available after final judgment. In Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding, 331 Conn. 711, 726, 207 A.3d 493 (2019), this court recently concluded that General Statutes § 51-197f, which governs petitions for certification to appeal......
-
Strand/BRC Grp., LLC v. Bd. of Representatives of Stamford
...Appellate Court if we determine that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction; see, e.g., 270 A.3d 64 Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding , 331 Conn. 711, 744, 207 A.3d 493 (2019) (remanding case to Appellate Court to dismiss writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because discovery order was n......
-
State v. Joseph V.
...the plain meaning of a statute, we look to prior case law defining the statute. See, e.g., Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding , 331 Conn. 711, 719, 207 A.3d 493 (2019) ("we must construe the statute in conformity with prior case law interpreting it"); State v. Moreno-Hernandez , 317 Conn. 29......
-
The Strand/BRC Grp. v. Bd. of Representatives of The City of Stamford
...of the Appellate Court if we determine that the Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction; see, e.g., Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding, 331 Conn. 711, 744, 207 A.3d 493 (2019) (remanding case to Appellate Court to dismiss writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because discovery order was not fin......