Opinion
No. FST FA 05 4004889 S
August 4, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL PLEADINGS DATED AUGUST 3, 2005 AS AMENDED ON AUGUST 4, 2005
Pursuant to P.B. § 11-20A(c), the plaintiff has submitted written motions filed with the court seeking an order sealing certain documents filed and/or lodged with this court.
This court did not conduct a hearing nor did this court meet with any party or counsel. The court reviewed all documents filed and/or lodged with this court dated August 3, 2005 and August 4, 2005, the pertinent case law and P.B. §§ 25-59A(c), 11-20A(c), 7-4B, and 7-4C.
This court noted that there is a presumption that documents filed with the court shall be available to the public. P.B. §§ 25-59A(a), 11-20A(a); Doe v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, 263 Conn. 39, 69-70 (2003); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992); State v. Kelly, 45 Conn.App. 142, 145 (1997); Preston v. O'Rourke, 74 Conn.App. 301 (2002); Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1070-71 (3d Cir. 1984).
After conducting an ex parte review of the motions, affidavits and exhibits filed and/or lodged with this court dated August 3, 2005 and August 4, 2005, the Practice Book rules and case law referred in this Memorandum of Decision, the court makes the following legal conclusions:
(1) The plaintiff has filed written motions to seal CT Page 11769-di motions, affidavits and exhibits in this pending legal separation action.
(2) This court has the authority under P.B. §§ 25-59A(c), 7-4B, 7-4C and 11-20A(c)to seal said motions, affidavits and exhibits.
(3) The plaintiff has filed an appropriate memorandum of law justifying the sealing.
(4) This court concludes that a sealing order is necessary to preserve interests, which are determined to override the public's interest in viewing such materials.
(5) This court has considered reasonable alternatives to such a sealing order.
(6) This court will enter a sealing order no broader than necessary to protect such overriding interest.
(7) The court has articulated the overriding interests being protected in the later FINDINGS section of this Memorandum of Decision.
(8) The court has specified its findings underlying such sealing order in the later FINDINGS section of this Memorandum of Decision.
(9) This court has specified the time, date, scope and duration of this sealing order in the ORDER section of this Memorandum of Decision.
(10) This Memorandum of Decision will not reveal any information entitled to remain confidential, thus this entire Memorandum of Decision is not to be sealed. There has been no hearing in this matter either in court or in camera, therefore there is no transcript.
FINDINGS
In accordance with P.B. §§ 25-59A(c) and 11-20A(c) the court hereby articulates the overriding interests being protected, as well as its findings, underlying the order. CT Page 11769-dj
These motions, affidavits and exhibits have been filed and/or lodged by the plaintiff in support of a legal separation action pending in this court between the parties, which was commenced by a complaint dated May 12, 2005. That portion of the file dated prior to August 3, 2005 remains a public file and is not sealed. The complaint requests orders relating to the marriage of the parties and their four minor children, now ages 8, 6, 4 and 3. "A family relations matter, as the present case is, generally does not relate to matters of public safety or involve matters of national security, where the public disclosure of information could override the need for privacy. The present case is a private matter between private people." Welch v. Welch, 48 Conn.Sup. 19, 27 (2003); Wendt v. Wendt, 45 Conn.Sup. 208 (1996), petition for review by Dow Jones Company denied by the Appellate Court (1997). In addition issues involving minor children have historically been protected from public disemination. State v. Davis, 48 Conn.Sup. 147 (2003) (35 Conn. L. Rptr.); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07, 102 S.CT. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982). Finally the privacy rights of all six Tauck family members are entitled to great protection. Matza v. Matza, 226 Conn. 166, 181 (1993). This court concludes that there are three interests that override the public's interest in viewing such motions, affidavits and exhibits: (1) the parties, right to continue to litigate their marital problems in this private matter between private people; (2) the right of the six Tauck family members to prevent the exposure of the four minor children to public scrutiny; and (3) the individual privacy rights of both the plaintiff and defendant.
In accordance with P.B. §§ 25-59A(c) and 11-20A(c) the court hereby makes the following findings. The plaintiff and defendant were married on August 19, 1995. The parties have four minor children issue of the marriage, now ages 8, 6, 4 and 3. The parties and the minor children all reside in Westport, CT. The plaintiff filed a complaint dated May 12, 2005 seeking a legal separation and claimed orders of custody of the minor children, child support, educational support orders for the children, alimony and an equitable division of the CT Page 11769-dk parties' assets. The defendant was served on May 12, 2005. The matter has been pending in this court for over two months. Both parties have appeared by counsel of record. The court has ordered that both parties complete a Parenting Education program in accordance with General Statutes § 46b-69b. The motions, affidavits and exhibits filed on August 3, 2005 and August 4, 2005 and dated August 3, 2005 and August 4, 2005 indicate substantial areas of controversy between the parties. From this court's experience in litigation of family disputes, such controversies cause further disruption in an already deteriorating marriage. Among the relief requested in the August 3, 2005 and August 4, 2005 documents are custody and exclusive possession. Public disclosure of those requests and supporting allegations cannot assist the plaintiff and defendant in resolving the various family issues they are now litigating and will further expose the minor children to even greater trauma than already suffered by them due to their parents undergoing a legal separation. This order is based on P.B. § 25-59A not P.B. § 11-20A.P.B. § 25-59A pertains to family matters and contains language and provisions similar but not identical to P.B. § 11-20A, which pertains to civil matters.
ORDER
The court hereby enters the following orders:
(1) The following documents are granted a Level 3 sealing and will be so noted by the Clerk of the Superior Court with the standard sticker.
(a) Notice Pursuant to Practice Book Rule 4-5 dated August 3, 2005.
(b) Ex Parte Application to Seal Pleadings, dated August 3, 2005.
(c) Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of Ex Parte Application to Seal Pleadings, dated August 3, 2005.
(d) Supporting legal authority attached to said Ex Parte Application to Seal Pleadings.
CT Page 11769-dl
(e) Notice Pursuant to Practice Book Rule 4-5, dated August 3, 2005.
(f) Affidavit of Nancy S. Tauck in Support of Application for Prejudgment Remedy Ex Parte, dated August 3, 2005.
(g) Affidavit of Robert Rabetsky in Support of Application for Prejudgment Remedy Ex Parte, dated August 3, 2005, together with attached Exhibits A, B, C D.
(h) Order Granting Prejudgment Remedy Ex Parte, dated August 3, 2005.
i) Order Granting Prejudgment Remedy After Hearing, dated August 3, 2005.
(j) Notice Pursuant to Practice Book Rule 4-5, dated August 3, 2005.
(k) Affidavit of Nancy S. Tauck in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion For Custody, Pendente Lite, dated August 3, 2005.
(l) Notice Pursuant to Practice Book Rule 4-5, dated August 3, 2005.
(m) Affidavit of Plaintiff Nancy S. Tauck in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion For Exclusive Possession, Pendente Lite, dated August 3, 2005.
(n) Notice Pursuant to Practice Book Rule 4-5, dated August 3, 2005.
(o) Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Court to Hold Computer in Evidence Under Seal, Pendente Lite, dated August 4, 2005.
(p) Notice Pursuant to Practice Book § 4-5, dated August 4, 2005.
(2) This order is effective at 5:00 p.m. August 4, 2005 and will continue until further order of this court or the earlier entry of a final judgment in the underlying action. CT Page 11769-dm
(3) This court will not seal pleadings and documents in the file dated before August 3, 2005 nor those documents in the file dated August 3, 2005 and August 4, 2005 not listed in paragraph (1) of this order.
(4) Any request for the closing of a courtroom in this matter is denied, without prejudice.
(5) Separate orders are being entered regarding the issues of Custody, Exclusive Possession and Prejudgment Remedy. This sealing order is only limited to the Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Seal Pleadings dated August 3, 2005 as amended August 4, 2005.
(6) This Memorandum of Decision is in compliance with the last portion of the last sentence of P.B. § 25-59A(d).
TIERNEY, J. CT Page 11769-dn