• Technologies
    • Review Platforms
    • ILS Social Media Data Analysis Suite
  • Consulting & Services
    • Consulting
    • Forensics & Collections
    • Review Platform Hosting & Management
    • Managed Review
    • Our Experts
  • AI Resources
  • ILS Articles
  • Company
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Support
    • Contact Us
  • ILS
  • Sales
  • Support
  • Technologies
    • Review Platforms
    • ILS Social Media Data Analysis Suite
  • Consulting & Services
    • Consulting
    • Forensics & Collections
    • Review Platform Hosting & Management
    • Managed Review
    • Our Experts
  • AI Resources
  • ILS Articles
  • Company
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Support
    • Contact Us

September 30, 2013

Is an eDiscovery Order Immediately Appealable as a Final Judgment?

by Alan Brooks

In the state court case of Radzick, et al. v. Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, et al., No. AC 34952(Conn. App. Ct. September 17, 2013), the plaintiff was the estate of a young boy who died allegedly due to medical malpractice by the defendants. Plaintiff discovery requests sought email and electronic data in native file format with metadata. Defendants refused, their main objection cited the privacy of other medical patients whose personal information would be contained within the data.

To address defendants’ privacy concerns, the trial court ordered a computer forensic examination and mirror imaging of the hard drives from three of defendants’ computers, to be reviewed by a special discovery master. The master was to then present his or her findings to the court for an in camera review. The defendants objected to the entry of this order and appealed it before the Appellate Court of Connecticut.

The question on appeal was whether the discovery order constituted a final judgment. The court reviewed the facts under the two-pronged test under State v. Curcio, 463 A.2d 566(1983), holding that interlocutory orders are immediately appealable only if the order:

(1) Terminates a separate and distinct hearing; or

(2) So concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.

The defendants argued that regarding the first prong, the discovery order was separate and distinct as the mirror imaging would capture privileged information of non-party patients. For the second prong, the defendants argued that the forensic examination amounted to an unreasonable search and seizure of the non-party patients and therefore, further proceedings cannot affect them.

The court concluded that neither of the elements of the Curcio test had been met, and that the discovery interlocutory order could not be immediately appealed. In this case, the discovery dispute was not separate or distinct from the underlying lawsuit (although it may be true if the discovery was sought from a third-party). Further, as the eDiscovery order did not provide for dissemination or publication of the data, the rights of the defendants were not irretrievably lost. With the independent forensic examination, the special master, and the in camera review by the court, there were sufficient protections of the sensitive information ordered to be produced.

ILS – Plaintiff Electronic Discovery Experts

Categories: eDiscovery

Tags: computer forensics, metadata

ILS
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 270
Irvine, CA 92614
(888) 313-4457
sales@ilsteam.com
  • About ILS
  • Consulting
  • Forensics & Collections
  • Review Platform Hosting & Management
  • Managed Review
  • Sales
  • Support
  • LinkedIn
  • X

© 2025 ILS.

  • Privacy Statement
  • Cookie Statement
  • Terms of Use/Legal
ILS
Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}