PETER E. WIESE, JUDGE.
This is a medical malpractice action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants Dr. Wayne Hosking, Hartford Anesthesia Associates, Inc. and the Hartford Hospital. Defendant, Dr. Hosking, has moved the court for a protective order seeking to preclude the plaintiff from taking his deposition. He contends that because of his present medical condition he is unable to participate. The plaintiff has objected to the protective order.
On October 16, 2006, the court heard oral argument on the motion and objection. The court has also reviewed a medical report concerning Dr. Hosking. The contents of the report form the basis of the defendant's motion.
The court granted Dr. Hosking's motion to seal this medical report. (See findings on the record.) Plaintiff's counsel was permitted to review the document in accordance with the sealing order.
Practice Book § 13-5 provides in relevant parts:
Upon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the judicial authority may make any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (1) that the discovery not be had; (2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters; (5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except the person designated by the judicial authority.
The court must first determine whether the moving party has demonstrated "good cause" for the issuance of the protective CT Page 19446 order. This finding is to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the situation presented. The court has substantial discretion in this matter. See generally; Carrier Corporation v. The Home Insurance Company et al., Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Docket No. CV88-352383 (Feb. 11, 1992, Schaller, Jr.) ( 6 Conn. L. Rptr. 3).
Based upon the record presented, the court finds that the facts and circumstances do not warrant an order prohibiting the deposition of Dr. Hosking. The court finds, however, that it is appropriate to enter an order which specifies the terms and conditions under which the proposed deposition may take place. This order will address the plaintiff's concerns.
Accordingly, counsel for the parties are directed to negotiate and draft a proposed protective order consistent with this ruling. The proposed order shall be submitted to the court for its review by November 17, 2006.
So Ordered.