Riles v. Bannish et al
ORDER granting 56 the parties' joint Motion for Protective Order as set forth in the attached order. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 10/26/11. (Constantine, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DANIEL A. RILES, JR.
DANIEL BANISH, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:10CV652 (RNC)
The parties' "Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order"
(doc. #56) is granted with the following clarifications.
to have any part(s) of a document filed under seal, a party must
(1) file a public version of the document that does not contain the
part(s) in question and (2) make a motion in accordance with
District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule 5(e) that specifies the
part(s) to be kept under seal and, with respect to each part, makes
a particularized showing of good cause for departing from the
strong presumption against sealing.
See Hartford Courant Co. v.
Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2004) (judicial records may
be sealed only when and to the extent necessary to preserve higher
values). This requires a careful review of each part of a document
a party wishes to file under seal to ensure that the requested
sealing order is no broader than necessary.
See United States v.
Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995).
Agreement of the
parties to a proposed sealing order is not a sufficient basis for
granting such an order.
Moreover, the court's assent to the parties' request for a
protective order to govern the disclosure and use of assertedly
confidential information does not mean that courtroom proceedings
will be closed to members of the public. Courtroom proceedings are
presumptively open to the public, and no closure order will be
entered in this case except on a specific written request of a
party supported by a showing of sufficient cause.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 26th day of October, 2011.
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?