Opinion
No. CV03-0348185 S
September 18, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiffs, the trustee and a beneficiary of a private trust, brought an action for, inter alia, declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, CUTPA violation, and an accounting. On August 8, 2003, and by agreement, the parties filed Motion #120 entitled "Confidentiality Stipulation and Motion for Protective Order," with respect to unidentified documents and information.
In their motion, the parties set forth various procedures by which confidential documents and information as provided in § 13-5 (7) of the Rules of Practice be kept confidential. The parties define documents to include pleadings, motions, responses to requests for admissions, briefs, and deposition transcripts. The parties seek a "blanket" or "umbrella" protective order whereby any person can designate a document as confidential and place limitations on the disclosure of the document based on that person's good faith determination that the document contains confidential information. The sole justification offered by the parties in support of their motion is that confidentiality will "protect the legitimate business interests of the parties, their clients, business associates, and other persons . . ."
Practice Book § 13-5(7) relates to "trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial information . . ."
While the recent amendments to the Connecticut Practice Book rules expressly state that the agreement of the parties with respect to sealing or limiting disclosure of documents on file with the court or filed in connection with a court proceeding is an insufficient basis for the issuance of such an order, the amendments apparently do not apply to the issuance of protective orders in discovery matters pursuant to Practice Book § 13-5. See Connecticut Practice Book § 11-20A (b). However, Practice Book § 13-5 does require a showing of good cause for the issuance of protective orders. "The showing must involve a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements." Hardisty v. Zoning Commission of the Town of Woodbury, 2 CSCR 433 (March 10, 1987, Gill, J.). See also CT Page 10878-cv Clarkson v. Greentree Toyota Corporation, et al., 8 CSCR 515 (May 24, 1993). In the present case, the parties have failed to sufficiently make that showing. Thus, to the extent that the motion seeks protection pursuant to Practice Book § 13-5, it is denied.
Although the motion presently before the court invokes the protection of Practice Book § 13-5, it exceeds the scope of Practice Book § 13-5. Practice Book § 13-5 relates to discovery issues and protection. The matter presently before this court is not limited to discovery but expressly encompasses pleadings, motions, affidavits and briefs. Thus, although the parties attempt to invoke the protection of the court pursuant to § 13-5 of the Practice Book, the provisions of Practice Book § 11-20A are implicated. Utilizing the method offered by the parties in their proposed stipulation before the court, any person can simply label as "confidential" any document they believe in good faith contains confidential information, thereby prohibiting access to the public and circumventing the safeguards put into place by the enactment of the new amendments to the Practice Book. While the parties propose in their motion procedures by which documents may be filed under seal, the proposed procedures simply do not satisfy the requirements set forth in the new rules.
Practice Book § 11-20A, entitled "Sealing Files or Limiting Disclosure of Documents in Civil Cases," applies to "any files, affidavits, documents, or other materials on file with the court or filed in connection with a court proceeding . . ." Under this new rule, the judicial authority may seal or limit disclosure of documents only if it finds that such order "is necessary to preserve an interest which is determined to override the public's interest in viewing such materials." The court is required to consider reasonable alternatives to any such order, the order must be no broader than necessary to protect the overriding interest being protected, and must specify the findings underlying the closure or sealing order.
Finally, the court finds that the motion is overly broad in its scope. The motion precludes anyone who has access to the confidential information and documents, including court officials, from using the information for any other business including governmental purposes or any other judicial proceedings; conceivably, this could conflict with a duty to report professional misconduct or criminal activity, such as perjury. Additionally, the motion provides that documents containing or referring to confidential information, which would include pleadings, affidavits and motions filed with the court, shall be destroyed within sixty days of the conclusion of the litigation; this, too, may unnecessarily conflict with court procedure and the administration. As another example, the motion requires that non-parties who produce confidential documents or information submit to the jurisdiction of this court for the resolution of any issues; the court finds this attempt to bind non-parties to the personal jurisdiction of this court unnecessarily broad.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied.
Bellis, J.