Opinion
FA134026445
10-18-2016
Yun Zhou v. Hao Zhang
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CLOSE THE COURTROOM FOR CERTAIN TESTIMONY; SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS, RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS OFFERED AT TRIAL; AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, PENDENTE LITE (#204)
Erika M. Tindill, Judge.
The Court has carefully reviewed the instant motion (#204) and memorandum of law in support thereof (#205), considered the testimony and evidence, taken into consideration the argument of counsel, and reviewed relevant rules, and statutory and case law--including P.B. § 13-5, the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Chapter 625 of the Connecticut General Statutes), C.G.S. § § 35-51, 46b-11, 52-163, 52-235d P.B. § § 7-4B, 7-4C, 11-20A, 25-59A, 25-59B, and Bank of New York v. Bell, 120 Conn.App. 837, 993 A.2d 1022, appealed dismissed 298 Conn. 917, 4 A.3d 1225 (2010), Tauck v. Tauck, 39 Conn.L.Rptr. 754, (Stamford 2005).
The law requires the Court to weigh the public's interest in access to open court proceedings and judicial records in this action with the Defendant's interest in keeping certain aspects of the dissolution action closed and inaccessible. The Court is satisfied that the Defendant is asking for the closure of the courtroom for certain portions of the trial testimony and the sealing of certain judicial documents for legitimate and compelling purposes under applicable law, namely his interest in maintaining his current employment and protection of his employer's trade secrets and confidential data, material, and information.
FINDINGS
1. The Defendant has successfully rebutted the presumption that closing the courtroom for certain portions of the trial testimony and sealing certain documents, exhibits, or materials associated with the parties' dissolution proceedings should be open to the public and has made a satisfactory showing that he has an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.
2. Closure of the courtroom for trial testimony that concerns:
The terms and conditions of the Defendant's employment with Two Sigma Investments, LP or Two Sigma Investments, LLC, other than his base salary;
Information and records concerning proprietary business information, programs, strategies, methodologies, technologies, formulas, algorithms, computer technology, and trade secrets;
Any financial information concerning clients and investors, along with any personal identifying information; and
Any information obtained or derived from the Plaintiffs having a computer hard drive copied and/or password(s) circumvented, including but not limited to any electronic mail communications or logs
. . . is necessary to preserve the defendant's employment interest and his interest in meeting his legal obligations under the Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non-Competition agreement (Defendant's Exhibit C) and Communications and Technology Systems Policy (Defendant's Exhibit F) he entered into with his employer. The Defendant's interests override the public's interest in access to the trial proceedings in this case.
3. Sealing of the certain documents, specifically any exhibits, documents, pleadings, or material that concern any of the four categories listed in finding #2 above, is necessary to preserve the Defendant's employment interest and his interest in meeting his legal obligations under the Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non-Competition agreement he entered into (Defendant's Exhibit C), and the Code of Conduct (Defendant's D) and the Communications and Technology Systems Policy (Defendant's Exhibit F) he signed. See also Defendant's Exhibit G--Two Sigma 2013 Compensation and Benefits Statement. The Defendant's interests override the public's interest in accessing and viewing the material he seeks to seal.
4. Two Sigma Investments, LP is a quantitative investment manager that advises private hedge funds using computer-driven, statistical mathematical processes. Two Sigma operates in a highly-competitive and highly-regulated commercial environment.
5. Public disclosure of the information contained in the pleadings and documents associated with the Defendant's employment as described in finding #2 above contain confidential information and trade secrets that, if disclosed, published, distributed, disseminated, or otherwise made accessible to the public at large, would likely cause irreparable harm to the Defendant's current employment, his future employment, and to Two Sigma, LP. Further, disclosure of the information would likely subject the Defendant to immediate termination of the Defendant's employment contract, in addition to other monetary and legal sanctions.
6. The Court has considered whether reasonable alternatives exist to the relief being sought by the Defendant. The Court finds that closing the courtroom for certain portion of testimony and the sealing of certain documents to be reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect the Defendant's overriding interests in his employment and employment obligations.
7. The Defendant has met his burden of showing good cause for a protective order against the Plaintiff. A protective order is necessary in order to protect the Defendant from annoyance, embarrassment, and undue burden and expense in meeting his obligations to his employer.
ORDERS
1. The Defendant's motion (#204) is granted.
2. The Court hereby incorporates the attached order. (Exhibit A.) The trial proceedings are ordered closed to the public during the introduction and discussion about the aforementioned documents, exhibits, and information. The aforementioned documents, exhibits, information and material are ordered sealed pursuant to the P.B.§ § 11-20, 11-20A and 25-59A until November 26, 2023.
3. The clerk is directed to complete and process JD-CL-76.
4. Any person affected by this order of closure of trial proceedings and sealing of documents has the right to review of the order by filing a petition for review with the Appellate Court within 72 hours from the issuance of the order pursuant to P.B. § § 11-20(f) and 11-20A(g).
5. Discovery orders sought by the Defendant regarding his September 27, 2016 Request to Plaintiff to Produce at Hearing Pursuant to P.B. § 25-56 will be issued by this Court under separate cover.
So Ordered.
Exhibit A
ORDER
The above motion to close the courtroom during certain testimony, sealing from the public certain documents, exhibits and materials and entering a protective order as to the Plaintiff, having been heard by this Court it is hereby ordered GRANTED [Erika Tindill, J. 10-18-16], and it is further ordered that:
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Hao Zhang, moves the Court to enter orders:
(a) the public is barred from the trial during any testimony of any witness which concerns: (i) the terms and conditions of the Defendant's employment; (ii) information and records concerning proprietary business information, programs, strategies, methodologies, technologies, formulas, algorithms, computer technology, programs, proprietary business information, trade secrets; (iii) any financial information concerning clients, investors, along with any personal identifying information, and (iv) any information obtained or derived from the Plaintiffs having a computer hard drive copied and/or password(s) circumvented including but not limited to any email communications or logs;
(b) the public's access to any exhibits or documents introduced or used during trial which concern: (i) the terms and conditions of the Defendant's employment; (ii) information and records concerning proprietary business information, programs, strategies, methodologies, technologies, formulas, algorithms, computer technology, programs, proprietary business information, trade secrets; (iii) any financial information concerning clients, investors, along with any personal identifying information, and (iv) any information obtained or derived from the Plaintiffs having a computer hard drive copied and/or password(s) circumvented including but not limited to any email communications or logs; and, requiring the sealing from the public of such documents, exhibits and materials is barred and said materials shall be held under seal by the Clerk of the Court after hearing and in accordance with law and due process; and
(c) the Plaintiff and any of her agents, servants, employees or representatives are barred and enjoined from dissemination, retransmission, transfer, giving, copying, divulging, viewing or allowing anyone to view or obtain such information or materials, or any " loss" of the hard drive and any information contained thereon; or, of any materials turned over in discovery; and the Plaintiff and her agents, servants, employees and representatives are required to take all measures reasonably required to protect such information and materials from unauthorized access, copying, viewing transfer, transmission, divulgence, loss, or dissemination.
The Court specifically finds that good cause has been shown for the issuance of the protective order; that the order is what is reasonably necessary to protect the interests set forth in the motion and that those interests override the public's interest in attending the proceedings and viewing any of the designated documents, exhibits, and materials; and that the scope of the orders is what is reasonably required and that there are no reasonable alternatives to the closure of the courtroom to portions of the testimony and the sealing of the designated documents, exhibits, and materials.