Santina Di Teresi et al. v. Stamford Health Systems, Inc. et al. (2010)

Memorandum of Decision

Defendants, Stamford Health Systems, Inc. and The Stamford Hospital have filed an “Objection to Request for Production Attached to Notice of Deposition of Patricia McCauley, R. N.” dated September 16, 2010.¹  In that objection the defendants claim that certain requests for production set forth in plaintiff's September 1, 2010 notice of deposition are “overly broad and unduly burdensome,” seek production of materials which are “irrelevant and immaterial” and that the requests are “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   The defendants cite no Practice Book authority for their objection.

Practice Book § 13-4(c)(1) dealing with depositions of expert witnesses provides:  “Unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority upon motion, a party may take the deposition of any expert witness disclosed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section in the manner prescribed in Section 26 et seq. governing deposition procedure generally.   Nothing contained in subsection (b) of this section shall impair the right of any party from exercising that party's rights under the rules of practice to subpoena or to request production of any materials, to the extent otherwise discoverable, in addition to those produced under subsection (b) of this section, in connection with the deposition of any expert witness, nor shall anything contained herein impair the right of a party to raise any objections to any request for production of documents sought hereunder to the extent that a claim of privilege exists.”

This Practice Book provision affords the defendants the limited right to object to a request of production of documents under a claim of privilege.   The objection filed by the defendants does not assert any such claims.   Accordingly, the court finds that Practice Book § 13-4(c)(1) does not allow the defendants to object to the production requested by the plaintiffs in their notice of deposition.

Practice Book § 13-26(a) dealing with notices of depositions, provides in relevant part:  “If a subpoena duces tecum is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced as set forth in the subpoena shall be attached to or included in the notice.”   In the case of party deponents, Section 13-26(g) provides that the notice “may be accompanied by a request made in compliance with Sections 13-9 through 13-11 for the production of documents and tangible things at the taking of the deposition.   The procedures of Section 13-9 through 13-11 shall apply to the request.” ²

With respect to non-party deponents, two Practice Book provisions are applicable.   The first, Practice Book § 13-27(d) provides:  “The person to whom a subpoena is directed may, within fifteen days after the service thereof or within such time as otherwise ordered by the court or agreed upon in writing by the parties, serve upon the issuing authority designated in the subpoena written objection to the inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials.   If objection is made, the party at whose request the subpoena was issued shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the disputed materials except pursuant to an order of the court in which the cause is pending.   The party who requested the subpoena may, if objection has been made, move, upon notice to the deponent, for an order at any time before or during the taking of the deposition.”   This provision contemplates that objections to the production of materials be made by “[t]he person to whom the subpoena is directed.”   The file in this case shows that Patricia McCauley, R.N., had not filed an objection to the production requested by the plaintiff.   Consequently, the court can find no basis to sustain the defendants' objection based on P.B. § 13-27(d).

The second provision relevant to non-party depositions is Practice Book § 13-28(e).   That section provides:  “The court in which the cause is pending, or, if the cause is pending in a foreign court, the court in the judicial district wherein the subpoenaed person resides, may, upon motion made promptly and, in any event, at or before the time for compliance specified in a subpoena authorized by subsection (b) of this section, (1) quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive or if it seeks the production of materials not subject to production under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, or (2) condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the party who requested the subpoena of the reasonable cost of producing the materials being sought.”  (Emphasis added.)   By its plain language, this section does not require that the motion be made by the party against whom the production is sought.   See:  Seymour v. Seymour, 262 Conn. 107, 111 n.3 (2002).   The court therefore finds that the defendants have standing to object under Practice Book § 13-28(e).

In this case, the defendants' objection claims only that the requests for production included in the plaintiff's September 1, 2010 notice of deposition are “overly broad and unduly burdensome,” seek production of materials which are “irrelevant and immaterial” and that the requests are “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”   There is no claim that the plaintiff's request is either “unreasonable and oppressive” or that “it seeks the production of materials not subject to production under the provisions of subsection (c) of [Section 13-28].”   The court finds that the defendants have not adequately asserted any objection permitted under P.B. § 13-28(e).

The court can find no support in the provisions of Practice Book for the defendants' objection.   Accordingly, their objection is overruled.

David R. Tobin, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Patricia McCauley, R.N., was previously disclosed as an expert witness by the defendants..  FN1. Patricia McCauley, R.N., was previously disclosed as an expert witness by the defendants.

FN2. Practice Book Section 13-10(c) provides, inter alia:  “No objection to any such request (for production) shall be placed in the short calendar list until an affidavit by either counsel is filed certifying that bona fide attempts have been made to resolve the difference concerning the subject matter of the objection and that counsel have been unable to reach an accord.”.  FN2. Practice Book Section 13-10(c) provides, inter alia:  “No objection to any such request (for production) shall be placed in the short calendar list until an affidavit by either counsel is filed certifying that bona fide attempts have been made to resolve the difference concerning the subject matter of the objection and that counsel have been unable to reach an accord.”

Tobin, David R., J.