DocketNumber: No. X06-CV98-0153502S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 1970, 26 Conn. L. Rptr. 505
Judges: McWEENY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/10/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendants on October 19, 1999 deposed Arrigoni in connection with this litigation. During the deposition, counsel for the defendants questioned Arrigoni concerning the meeting between Arrigoni and the plaintiff's attorney. The plaintiff's attorney objected to the line of inquiry, claiming attorney-client privilege. The plaintiff seeks a protective order to prevent such questioning; the defendants oppose the motion for protective order and claim the questions. Arrigoni has never been formally retained to serve as either a consultant or expert for the plaintiff.
Connecticut law recognizes that the attorney-client privilege applies to communications between an attorney and its agents necessary for proper representation of the attorney's clients.Olson v. Accessory Controls and Equipment Corp. ,
There is no Connecticut authority or even second circuit authority governing whether the subjective or objective test is controlling under these circumstances. This court, however, is satisfied that even when the more stringent objective test is applied in this instance, the totality of circumstances would mandate that the conversations between the plaintiff's counsel and Arrigoni that occurred between August, 1998 and October 19, 1999 are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Accordingly, the motion for protective order (#178.50) is granted with respect to any conversations had between Arrigoni and the plaintiff's attorney between August, 1998 and October 19, 1999.
Robert F. Mcweeny, J.
Warren B. Sheinkopf v. John K.P. Stone Iii, Etc. , 927 F.2d 1259 ( 1991 )
Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Hayes , 64 F.3d 22 ( 1995 )
eugene-r-grace-v-center-for-auto-safety-clarence-m-ditlow , 72 F.3d 1236 ( 1996 )
westinghouse-electric-corporation-v-kerr-mcgee-corporation-noranda-mines , 580 F.2d 1311 ( 1978 )