Brown v. Clayton et al

Filing 111

ORDER granting 108 defendants' Motion for Order; denying 109 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. See the ruling attached. The Clerk of the Court will place document nos. 34, 71, 75 and 80 under seal. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 4/22/13. (Esposito, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
GEORGE BROWN
v.
OFFICER IVAN J. CLAYTON

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. NO. 3:11CV714 (JCH)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS

The Motion for Reconsideration [doc. #109] of the Order re:
Attorney Conduct is DENIED. The Order did not impose sanctions
or make findings for Rule 11 purposes. It was an effort to
resolve the issues between counsel short of Rule 11 litigation.
In light of the content and tone of the Motion for
Reconsideration, and counsel's decision not to offer the apology
discussed at the conference, these efforts have failed. All
further motions will be handled by Judge Hall.
The Clerk of the Court will docket the Motion for
Reconsideration and file the Memorandum in support of the Motion
for Reconsideration with exhibits under seal due to the personal
attacks it contains on opposing counsel.
The Clerk of the Court will docket under seal plaintiff’s
response to defendants’ Motion for Order [doc. #108].
The Court notes that the magistrate judge referral in
Sierra v. Morales, Civ. No. 13CV323 (WWE) [doc. #13], was made
by Judge Eginton, with whom the magistrate judge is paired, and

1

defendant's counsel had no role in it.

That motion was decided

on the papers, which were filed by Attys. Mastronardi and
Roberts. [13CV323 (WWE)[doc. #10]].
Defendants’ Motion for Order re: Docket #103 [doc. #108] is
GRANTED, to the extent that it seeks clarification of the
current status of the dispute between counsel. The Clerk of the
Court will place attachment #1 to defendants’ Motion for Order
[doc. #108], under seal.
Both counsel are free to file any motions, or seek any
remedies, they feel are appropriate. This dispute has not been
resolved by agreement.

As noted in doc. #103, based on the

failure of the mediation, the Court will enter a scheduling
order and Judge Hall will hear the parties regarding Rule 11
sanctions.
Any Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11, or motion for
protective order, based on conduct to date, must be filed or
submitted (see below) on or before May 3, 2013.
Plaintiff’s counsel will continue to submit any filings
that refer to defense counsel under seal so that they can be
reviewed. Defense counsel may also file memoranda or exhibits
under seal to avoid spreading personal attacks on the public
record.
The Court’s April 8, 2013, Order, [doc. 103], is modified
to the extent that document Nos. 34, 71, 75, and 80 will be
placed under seal pending further proceedings.
This is not a recommended ruling.

This is a ruling and

order reviewable pursuant to the "clearly erroneous" statutory
2

standard of review.

28 U.S.C. '636 (b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(a), 6(e) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United
States Magistrate Judges.

As such, it is an order of the Court

unless reversed or modified by the district judge upon motion
timely made.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 22nd day of April 2013.

_________/s/____________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3