Argued
September 12, 2018
Procedural
History
Action
to recover damages for, inter alia, defamation, and for other
relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Hartford, where the court, Elgo,
J., granted the defendant's motion for summary
judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the
plaintiff appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Keith
Yagaloff, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Michael R. McPherson, for the appellee (defendant).
DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Lavery, Js.
OPINION
LAVERY, J.
The
plaintiff, David Ravalese, appeals from the summary judgment
rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Joanne
M. Lertora, on his complaint sounding in defamation. On
appeal, the plaintiff sets forth two main claims: (1) the
court improperly held that a report authored by the defendant
was made for the purpose of litigation and, therefore, that
the plaintiff's action for defamation was barred by the
doctrine of absolute immunity; and (2) the court improperly
held that the statute of limitations barred the
action.[1]We affirm the judgment of the court.
The
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
decision. In 2000, the court dissolved the marriage of the
plaintiff and Kimberly Ravalese, whom we refer to jointly as
the Ravaleses. Following the dissolution of their marriage,
the Ravaleses were involved in protracted and contentious
postjudgment custody and visitation proceedings. In February,
2004, the court appointed a guardian ad litem for their minor
child. Between 2004 and 2012, the Ravaleses were involved in
numerous court proceedings, including, inter alia, various
motions for contempt that had been filed by the plaintiff, a
court-ordered appointment of a new guardian ad litem for the
minor child, and a court-ordered study for parental
alienation. The defendant is a psychologist, who provided
individual psychotherapy to the minor child on or about
September, 2004 through December, 2010.
During
the course of these proceedings, in early 2010, Kimberly
Ravalese's attorney, Fatima Lobo, forwarded to Kimberly
Ravalese an e-mail, requesting that she ask the defendant to
draft a report summarizing the defendant's insights
regarding the appropriate custody and visitation arrangements
for the child. Kimberly Ravalese then gave the defendant a
hard copy of this e-mail and asked the defendant to compose
the requested report.
In
response, the defendant composed a report summarizing her
assessment. Both the plaintiff and Kimberly Ravalese signed
an agreement authorizing the defendant to make the report
available to their respective attorneys and to the
child's guardian ad litem, Emily Moskowitz. The defendant
attests that she provided a copy of her report only to Lobo
and to Kimberly Ravalese.[2]
In the
report, the defendant discussed, among other things, the
child's reports of the plaintiff's engaging in
abusive behavior, the defendant's opinion that the
plaintiff's behavior warranted a personality disorder
diagnosis, and the defendant's recommendations regarding
visitation between the plaintiff and his minor child. Lobo
attempted to introduce the report into evidence at a July 8,
2010 postdissolution court hearing, but was unsuccessful
because the child's guardian ad litem, Moskowitz,
asserted the psychologist-patient privilege, and the court,
thereafter, declined to admit the report.[3] In August, 2011,
Kimberly Ravalese filed a grievance against Moskowitz with
the Statewide Grievance Committee (grievance committee). The
plaintiff alleges in his operative complaint that during the
grievance proceedings, Kimberly Ravalese provided the
defendant's report to the grievance committee.
The
plaintiff filed a complaint, dated May 28, 2013, in the
Superior Court against the defendant, sounding in defamation
and several other theories of liability.[4]The plaintiff
alleged in relevant part that the defendant, in the report
she had authored, unfairly characterized him as a child
abuser and a sociopath. In the operative complaint, the
plaintiff describes two separate instances that he alleges
constitute defamation: (1) when the defendant provided the
report to Kimberly Ravalese in June, 2010; and (2) when
Kimberly Ravalese allegedly submitted the report to
‘‘the grievance committee, and to attorneys
representing the parties in that matter, to various
individuals involved in the hearing, including mental health
professionals.''
In
response to the plaintiff's operative complaint, the
defendant pleaded several special defenses, namely, that the
statements in the report are truthful, that they are
statements of opinion, that they are absolutely privileged
because they were published in connection with judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings, that they were published in good
faith, with the health and welfare of a child in mind, and,
therefore, that they are protected by a qualified privilege,
that the plaintiff's defamation count is barred ...