From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saundry v. Saundry

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Meriden
Jul 15, 1996
1996 Ct. Sup. 5204 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996)

Opinion

No. FA 960253546S

July 15, 1996 CT Page 5204-ZZZ


Memorandum Filed July 15, 1996


The parties to this dissolution of marriage action have jointly moved to seal the file and to close the hearings in connection with this case. The plaintiff is concerned about disclosures of financial information relevant to her solo law practice. Both parties are concerned about disclosures that might affect the parties' minor children in that the defendant is an intelligence captain with the state department of correction, working directly with inmates, performing investigations into the criminal activities of inmates and employees of that department, and assisting the Connecticut state police in the prosecution of criminal activities.

General Statutes §§ 46b-11 and 46b-49 give this court authority to close hearings and enter orders limiting public inspection of court documents in family cases. Practice Book § 211B governs exclusion of the public and sealing files generally. Read together, all these provisions give the court authority to close proceedings and to seal files where there is a particular interest to be protected and that interest overrides "the public's interest in attending such proceeding or in viewing such materials. Any such order shall be no broader than necessary to protect such overriding interest." Practice Book § 211B.

The plaintiff's concern about disclosure of her financial situation is not such an overriding interest. Fear of disclosure of certain particularized information concerning the parties' children could, at some point, give rise to such an overriding interest. At this stage of the proceedings, however, merely invoking this generalized concern does not outweigh our system's basic bias in favor of public courts and open records and proceedings.

The motion to seal file and close hearings is therefore denied, without prejudice. The parties are invited to reapply for a particularized order in connection with any future aspect of these proceedings the disclosure of which they fear might compromise their children's safety.

SILBERT, J. CT Page 5204-AAAA


Summaries of

Saundry v. Saundry

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Meriden
Jul 15, 1996
1996 Ct. Sup. 5204 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996)
Case details for

Saundry v. Saundry

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN L. SAUNDRY v. EDWARD A. SAUNDRY

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Meriden

Date published: Jul 15, 1996

Citations

1996 Ct. Sup. 5204 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996)
17 CLR 373

Citing Cases

Wilkinson v. Wiegand

" Sec. 211B(b). Therefore, as did Judge Silbert in Saundry v. Saundry, 1996 WL 434297, 17 CONN. L. RPTR. 373…

Soroka v. Household Automotive Finance

Practice Book 11-20A dictates what must happen when a party makes a motion to seal or redact part or all of…