Anderson v. Eastern Connecticut Health Network, Inc. et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting joint 70 Third Motion for Protective Order; denying as moot 47 Second Motion for Protective Order. SEE ATTACHED. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/23/13. (Nichols, J.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HARRY T. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN CT HEALTH NETWORK, INC. et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:12CV785(RNC) ORDER The parties' Joint Motion for Protective Order (doc. #70) is granted1 with the following clarifications. In order 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 1 Plaintiff conceded at the January 10, 2013 hearing that he has placed his physical and mental health at issue and, upon entry of a protective order, will execute authorizations to release relevant treatment records in response to defendants' discovery requests. 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. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 23rd day of January, 2013. ____________/s/______________ 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?