Williams v. University Of Connecticut, Trustees et al

Filing 65

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 2/7/08. (Turner, M.)

Williams v. University Of Connecticut, Trustees et al

Doc. 65

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HERBERTIA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER Pending before the court are the plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Compel Disclosure of Unredacted Affidavit of Defendant Mark Wentzel (doc. #50) and the plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Joint Motion for Protective Order (doc. #56). The defendants incorrectly submitted the affidavit of Mark Wentzel to the court ex parte without seeking leave to do so, while filing a highly redacted version in support of their Motion for Protective Order. The undersigned has not reviewed or opened the defendants' ex parte submission, and will not consider it in ruling upon the defendants' pending Motion for Protective Order. The ex parte

CASE NO. 3:06CV1999(AWT)

submission shall be returned to defendant Wentzel's counsel. If the defendants still seek to rely upon the affidavit, they may either file the unredacted affidavit as a supplement to their Motion for Protective Order, or they may move for a sealing

Dockets.Justia.com

order or in camera review of the affidavit in compliance with the recently revised Local Rule 5(e). That rule sets forth detailed

procedural guidelines for sealing motions and permits a sealing order only upon "particularized findings demonstrating that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve those reasons." 5(e)(3). D. Conn. L. Civ. R.

The defendants shall file all submissions relating to

their Motion for Protective Order on or before February 13, 2008. Insofar as the plaintiff's motion seeks disclosure of the unredacted affidavit, it is denied without prejudice. The plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Joint Motion for Protective Order (doc. #56) is granted in part. The plaintiff's opposition to the Motion for

Protective Order shall be filed on or before March 5, 2008. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 7th day of February, 2008. /s/ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge