Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)

Citation: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Parent Document: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2022-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10278647/dorfman-v-smith/ ↗

Full Text

2,423 chars

sentations at issue could be characterized as false,
extreme or outrageous.’’ (Citations omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 906,
845 A.2d 406 (2004). The fact that the defendant made
these misrepresentations to its own attorneys with the
intent that the attorneys would then file false pleadings
and discovery responses does not change the outcome.
The only factual difference in the present case is that
the defendant’s attorneys served as intermediaries. The
fact that the defendant did not makes these false com-
munications in court, or directly to the trial court or
an opposing party, does not limit the application of the
privilege. See, e.g., Hopkins v. O’Connor, supra, 282
Conn. 826 (‘‘the absolute privilege that is granted to
statements made in furtherance of a judicial proceeding
extends to every step of the proceeding until final dispo-
sition’’); id., 832 (‘‘[t]he scope of privileged communica-
tion extends not merely to those made directly to a
tribunal, but also to those preparatory communications
that may be directed to the goal of the proceeding’’);
Kenneson v. Eggert, 196 Conn. App. 773, 783, 230 A.3d
795 (2020) (‘‘[t]here is no requirement under Connecti-
cut jurisprudence that to be considered part of a judicial
proceeding, statements must be made in a courtroom
or under oath or be contained in a pleading or other
documents submitted to the court’’). The plaintiff’s
claim therefore remains premised on the defendant’s
communications during and relevant to a judicial pro-
ceeding.
Our Appellate Court has relied on a similar rationale
in applying the litigation privilege to a claim for negli-
gent infliction of emotional distress premised on the
withholding of information. In Stone v. Pattis, 144 Conn.
App. 79, 96, 72 A.3d 1138 (2013), the plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants conspired to unduly subpoena wit-
nesses, to conceal from the court the reasons for not
calling certain witnesses, and not to disclose certain
Page 68 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text