Skip to main content
· 3/5/2024

Benvenuto v. Brookman

Citations

  • 348 Conn. 609

Syllabus

The plaintiff, a lieutenant with the Hartford Police Department, filed a bill of discovery against the defendant, who publishes an Internet blog on issues relating to Hartford municipal governance, seeking the production of certain materials that would enable the plaintiff to ascertain the 610 MARCH, 2024 348 Conn. 609 Benvenuto v. Brookman identities of persons who had posted anonymous blog comments con- taining allegedly defamatory statements about him. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to release the Internet protocol addresses and any other information identifying the anonymous com- menters and to submit for forensic analysis the hard drive of the laptop and the cell phone the defendant used in connection with the blog. The trial court granted the plaintiff's bill of discovery, concluding that the plaintiff had demonstrated probable cause with respect to his defamation claim against the authors of certain anonymous comments. To safeguard the defendant's privacy interests, the court ordered that the parties initially attempt to come to an agreement on the terms of a protective order and search protocols that would govern the scope and procedures to be used in the forensic analysis of his electronic devices. The court further ordered that, if the parties could not agree on those matters, then they must submit to the court proposed orders so the court could resolve any dispute. The court explicitly retained jurisdiction until such time as the parties filed their agreements or the court resolved any related disputes. Before the parties attempted to negotiate the terms, however, the defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's granting of the plaintiff's bill of discovery on various constitutional, statutory, and evidentiary grounds. Held that the trial court's decision granting the plaintiff's bill of discovery was not an appealable final judgment, and, accordingly, this court dis- missed the defendant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction:

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.