Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

.... -..- S .... III
. I II
I I Case 3:03-cv-00316-JCH Document 76 Filed 01/05/2004 Page 1 of 1 I `
I . II
I S1MMoNs, JANNACE & STAGG, Li—L.1>.
I ;$"'" '°bS';"“'°"S ATTORNEYS Ar I.Aw , I I I _ C¤·-·~s=I-
I /-\ ..I.H;:Ii; ;_::;;E<> THE FINANCIAL CENTER A _ III; SUSAN B_ JANNACE I
I Q _ DEBRA LYNNE WAeNIk* 90 MERRICK AVENUE VI · ‘ ·—I.‘ I VIRGINIA CDYNE
I SUITE | O2 II ‘ Ross M. CHINITZ i
§ J; _II"§ ’CIII:IE5A EAST MEADOW, New YORK I I 554 I
I SA |E|__UcA A I I I *AL5O ADMITTED NJ I
K, FITZGERALD FAX Is I si asv-aI I I sms ADMITTEDCT I
I \ DA •_ GREGORYII OAI.sc> ADM|`|'|'ED DC
I KE I HOLLAND 45 Essex Smear, Sum; 200 I ·
J, KANG HAckI:NsAck, NIJ 0760I ` I
AN AzrN T I
Q Mic II;. Karan A 700 CANAI, Smear .
sn A. SALTZMAN S·rAr·1FoRo, CONNECTICUTOGQOE ` I
Ju; . 5·r0oER I- I
g Nliq 2E. TAI=asoN*
In CY! I
G ecem er , ..... I_
QI \I\I\ W D b 17 2003 N; cb
, 5 as I
K igx Im pm I
(I A Iii Q ra I
Ig vIA RNIGHT MAIL °° E ?
The Honorable Janet C. Hall ]> I; I
VQ United States District Judge do I I
United States District Court *“I§I»;? 4.-: I I
I District of Connecticut •"° "" J
915 Lafayette Boulevard I
I VI Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 I I
I I Re: Chapman v. Experian information Services, Inc. I
and Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. I
§`§ Case No.: 03 CV 316 (JCI-I) Igj
(·—.\ I
wl g Dear“QJl.1dge Hall: I I
\ ` S Y j;
8 We represent defendant Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase"). On
I5 December 2, 2003, the court issued a revised confidentiality order. The final paragraph I
g set forththe revisions plaintiff was ordered to incorporate into the prior confidentiality order
- so that a final confidentiality order could be entered by the court.
g By letter dated Decemeber 3, 2003, plaintiff requested that the court re—lnsert the
word "non—dispositive" in paragraph five of the confidentiality order. He argued that
gdocuments used at trial or filed with a dispositive motion "belong to the public" and may not
§ 3 be held under seal.
§ IQ gw Plaintiff's request to modify the order and insert language that preemptively unseals I
} g confidential documents conflicts with Second Circuit precedent. According to the Second I I
sg Circuit, a court should not modify a protective order absent an extraordinary circumstance I
I§ I
g I
E—— II
` gggg, g II
ZQT rg ri'; -V-L -V;-.3212-art;-?r€_;r??-irVE?-EVE-7T? r- ir n ir I -
T- tif? -; iq? 1; -i-LLEEZE 1-iii?-ék?-iTr;--ir i?r -; iT? L- ;" -- if I I - V