Kevin P. Mahaney v. Diana G. Mahaney (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE (# 127) and PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT DISCOVERY SPECIAL MASTER (# 144)

This action comes before the court on two motions:  plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate (# 127) and plaintiff's Motion to Appoint a Discovery Special Master (# 144).   Though seemingly unrelated, the motions ultimately involve many of the same concerns with regard to efficiency, cost effectiveness and judicial administration, all in the context of the particular issues presented by the facts of this case.   For the reasons stated hereafter, the court will deny each of the motions without prejudice to their reassertion at a later date.

This action was commenced by the husband, Kevin Mahaney, by complaint dated April 9, 2010.   The parties present as a couple married to each other on July 28, 2001 with no children of this marriage.   The plaintiff claims and seeks to enforce a premarital agreement entered into shortly before the marriage.   Plaintiff claims the premarital agreement was fairly negotiated with each side being represented by counsel and with full disclosure.   In his Motion to Bifurcate, plaintiff claims he is entitled to the benefit of that agreement and that the agreement will be found enforceable upon examination.   By asking that the court bifurcate this matter and first determine the enforceability of the premarital agreement, plaintiff hopes to avoid unnecessary, protracted and expensive proceedings in this matter.

The defendant wife, Diana G. Mahaney, opposes the enforcement of the agreement and at this point at least, indicates she will challenge the enforceability of the agreement on numerous grounds including the voluntariness of her execution of the agreement, whether it was unconscionable when executed and/or unconscionable at the present time and, whether the defendant was afforded fair reasonable disclosure as to the amount, character and value of the property and financial situation of her husband.   Defendant also opposes bifurcation saying it will not be efficient in this case.

There is no dispute as to the right of the trial court to control the sequence in which issues will be presented to and resolved by the court.   Bifurcation has been recognized as a tool available to the court by Statute, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-205, Rule, P.B. § 15-1 and case law, Saczynski v. Saczynski, 109 Conn.App. 426, 428 (2008).

Each of the parties has cited and discussed various authorities from Connecticut and other jurisdictions which address the circumstances and factors to be considered by the court in addressing a motion to bifurcate and the different conclusions to which the trial court may come see, e.g.-Reichold Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity, Co., 243 Conn.App. 401, 423 (1997).   The court recognizes these factors and has sought to apply them in this case.   Suffice it to say that while the discretion afforded the trial court and the factors to be considered are generally recognized, the application of these factors in different factual situations has led to myriad different results and decisions.   Usually, the question boils down to a simple one.   Is the investment of time in addressing one issue in advance likely to dispose of the entire case or will it simply cause the court to cover the same ground twice.   In short will any bifurcation resolve the case or just waste the parties' time.

In this case, the court has not seen the prenuptial agreement alleged and the scope of issues which might be avoided by determining its enforceability is not clear.   It appears that at least some of the defenses asserted to the enforcement of the prenuptial agreement, such as the fullness and fairness of the disclosure made at the time of execution of the agreement, are not ready to be addressed and may require substantial amounts of discovery before the parties will be able to litigate them.   On the other hand, it appears that at this point at least some of the defenses claimed to the agreement, such as the voluntariness of execution by the defendant and her opportunity to be afforded representation with regard to the agreement, may require considerably less discovery and the resolution of those issues could well assist the parties in focusing their efforts on what issues remain in the case.   The court recognizes that the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement will have tremendous significance to each side and that early resolution of this issue is actually in the best interest of both plaintiff and defendant.   The sooner they know how this issue will be resolved, the fewer resources will be exhausted in that dispute.

Given all of these competing concerns, the court is not yet comfortable that bifurcation will ‘be appropriate at this time, though it expects that such may ultimately prove to be the case.

Accordingly, the court has determined that the plaintiff's Motion for Bifurcation should be denied at this time without prejudice to reassertion once sufficient discovery has taken place that the parties can assist the court in better gauging the probability that bifurcation will advance the ultimate disposition of this case.

With regard to the Motion to Appoint a Special Master to Handle Discovery, the parties argue the Motion from entirely different frames of reference.   Plaintiff points to an onslaught of interrogatories and production requests from defendant claiming they are unreasonable, excessive and often designed to harass as they cover areas which, plaintiff claims, are entirely irrelevant and excessive.

Perhaps not surprisingly, defendant's view of the world is entirely different.   Defendant claims that plaintiff's financial affairs are extremely complicated, involving quite a number of closely held entities.   Because the defendant is now claiming the valuation of the plaintiff's financial affairs, both at the time of the prenuptial agreement and currently, will involve a “complex and tedious undertaking,” see plaintiff's Memorandum of Law (# 142) at 5, the defendant claims she needs the voluminous discovery.   Defendant also suggests that the plaintiff's discovery responses have been evasive and dilatory.¹

Another concern raised by the defendant is that given the current economic disparity between the parties, imposition of the added cost of a Special Master upon the defendant, who has limited financial resources, may further handicap the defendant's efforts in this regard.

In considering the appointment of a Discovery Special Master, the court notes that since the argument on this Motion, the parties have come before the court for hearings and stipulations regarding other discovery motions, see e.g., Stipulation and Agreement Re:  Motions 147 and 148 Pendente Lite (# 156) and it appears that many of the objections and disputes concerning discovery may have been substantially narrowed.   Moreover, the defendant has had the opportunity to view additional financial statements of the plaintiff and question the plaintiff about what financial records are available, how financial documents are prepared with regard to various entities associated with the plaintiff and to acquire additional information about the plaintiff's financial condition.   It should well be the case that the scope of the disputes between the parties is substantially narrowed as they learn more about what records are or are not available.   Given what may be a very different situation at this time, the court will defer ruling on the Motion to Appoint a Special Master and instead direct the parties to update and further report to the court on the status of discovery in this case.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

(1) Lead counsel for plaintiff and defendant shall meet personally and confer in good faith with regard to all pending discovery issues in this case.   Each counsel shall file with the court an affidavit detailing the time, place and duration of the meeting(s) conducted in a good faith effort to address and resolve all discovery disputes.   Such affidavits will further identify, grouping by category, those discovery issues which remain needing the attention of the court.   The parties may by supporting written memorandum organize their views on common areas of discovery or common objections.   The affidavits and memorandum should, without limitation address the following:

(1) what discovery objections can be resolved upon entry of an appropriate order of confidentiality and the status of such a request;

(2) what discovery requests, not withstanding an objection, have already been the subject of compliance;

(3) what discovery requests may, without prejudice to a party's right to compel or a party's right to object, be deferred by the parties to determine whether ongoing discovery compliance might render the need for such discovery moot;

(4) the order in which pending discovery disputes should be addressed to maximize efficiency and expedite discovery in this case;  and,

(5) the position of each party as to whether the award of costs and, if necessary or appropriate, sanctions should be made as a matter of course in favor of the prevailing party for any discovery disputes presented to the court, and whether, in fairness and in equity to the parties, such costs and/or sanctions should be entered against the parties or counsel.

The parties shall further confer in good faith and report to the court on the status of discovery in this matter and report to the court on the following:

(1) the status of all discovery which has been served by either party as of the date the reports are submitted to the court;

(2) what further discovery remains to be done before this matter is ready for trial, independent of the issue of any possible bifurcation and a suggested deadline for the completion of all discovery;

(3) what depositions have been scheduled, completed, or will be needed in this case and proposed deadlines for such;

(4) a deadline by which any expert witnesses will be disclosed and a subsequent date by which expert depositions will be completed.

The court would prefer that the parties propose deadlines for all discovery by agreement.

The parties are to complete all good faith discussions and conferences within thirty days of the date of this order.

The parties are to submit their comprehensive statements either by agreement or separately to the court within 45 days of this order.   The court will then hold a hearing and status conference on all pending discovery objections and set a schedule for completion of discovery.   The hearing and conference will take place at 9:30 a.m. on January 26, 2011.

The parties to whom discovery requests are directed are specifically ordered that notwithstanding any pending objections, they should make every reasonable and possible effort to prepare discovery compliance, including production of documents, notwithstanding the pendency of objections.   In the event such objections are overruled, the court will order compliance deadlines on the assumption that the parties have done everything possible to comply with discovery requests expeditiously in the event the court overrules the objection.

Done this 8th day of December 2010.

BY THE COURT

Wenzel, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The defendant also challenges whether this court can properly delegate an evaluation of discovery to a Special Master arguing such would be an impermissible delegation of the court's responsibilities under the Connecticut Constitution.   As to this ground the court is not persuaded.   Connecticut courts have recognized the inherent power of the court to appoint Special Masters, especially when their duties are properly circumscribed and subject to appropriate review by the court.   In Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn.App. 133, 169-71 (2004), the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed the use of a special master in a far more extensive manner without any expression of concern such as raised here.   This argument is without merit..  FN1. The defendant also challenges whether this court can properly delegate an evaluation of discovery to a Special Master arguing such would be an impermissible delegation of the court's responsibilities under the Connecticut Constitution.   As to this ground the court is not persuaded.   Connecticut courts have recognized the inherent power of the court to appoint Special Masters, especially when their duties are properly circumscribed and subject to appropriate review by the court.   In Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn.App. 133, 169-71 (2004), the Connecticut Supreme Court addressed the use of a special master in a far more extensive manner without any expression of concern such as raised here.   This argument is without merit.

Wenzel, William, J.