Opinion
No. 314698
November 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff claims that she sustained personal injuries when the defendant's vehicle negligently struck her vehicle. The defendant has moved to compel the production of a statement of the plaintiff tape-recorded by an agent of the plaintiff's liability insurer. The plaintiff objects claiming that absent the showing required by Practice Book § 219, the statement is protected from disclosure.
Practice Book § 219 provides in relevant part that, except for circumstances not applicable here, "a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable . . . prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means." (Emphasis added.) Practice Book § 216(3) defines "representative" to include an "agent, attorney, consultant, indemnitor, insurer, and surety."
Under the plain wording of Practice Book §§ 216(3), 219, the plaintiff's statement to the agent of her insurer in the aftermath of this motor vehicle accident is protected from disclosure, absent the showing required by Practice Book § 219. See also 8 Wright, Miller Marcus, Federal Practice Procedure § 2024, discussing Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 26(b)(3) on which Practice Book § 219 was patterned and the cases and comments to which this court may refer for guidance; Raso v. CMC Equipment rental, 154 F.R.D. 126, 127-128 (E.D.Pa. 1994); Suggs v. Whitaker, 152 F.R.D. 501, 505-506 (M.D.N.C. 1993); Banks v. Wilson, 151 F.R.D. 109, 111-112 (E.D.Minn. 1993); Hamilton v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 395 F. Sup. 975, 976 (E.D.La. 1974).
See, e.g., Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531, 547-548, 590 A.2d 914 (1991); Sharp v. Mitchell, 209 Conn. 59, 72, 546 A.2d 846 (1988); Stevens v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co., 29 Conn. App. 378, 385, 615 A.2d 507 (1992); Mac's Car City, Inc. v. American National Bank, 205 Conn. 255, 260, 532 A.2d 1302 (1987); Horton v. Meskill, 187 Conn. 187, 191-192, 445 A.2d 579 (1982); Senior v. Hope, 156 Conn. 92, 96, 239 A.2d 486 (1968); Schurgast v. Schuman, 156 Conn. 471, 484, 242 A.2d 695 (1968); New Haven Development Agency v. Research Associates, 153 Conn. 118, 120, 214 A.2d 375 (1965); Masterson v. Atherton, 149 Conn. 302, 316, 179 A.2d 592 (1962); Marciniak v. Wauregan Mills, Inc., 139 Conn. 264, 268, 93 A.2d 135 (1952); Arduini v. Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 23 Conn. App. 585, 589, 583 A.2d 152 (1990); Vincent v. Litchfield Farms, Inc., 21 Conn. App. 524, 527, 574 A.2d 834 (1990); Sheridan v. Board of Education, 20 Conn. App. 231, 237, 565 A.2d 882 (1989); Brown v. K. N. D. Corporation, 7 Conn. App. 418, 426, 509 A.2d 533 (1986); 1 Moller Horton, Connecticut Practice Book Annotated, Authors' Comments to chapter 8 and Authors' Comments to § 219.
The motion to compel is denied and the objection thereto sustained.
BY THE COURT
Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court