Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

.- .... .....-.a-... |III I
Case 3:03-cv-00316-JCH Document 75 Filed 01/05/2004 Page 1 of 3 _ F
S1MMoNs, JANNACE & STAGG, L]L.P. I
KEVIN F'. SIMMONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW I Y ` I A CQUNSEL
/_\ DL_`“;`;;°;§$O THE FINANCIAL CENTER I _ _ II; "{II. SUSAN B_ JANNACE f ·
m DEBRA LYNNE WABNIK* 9O IVIERRICK AVENUE I_ - ‘ . ` ~ - VIRGINIA COYNE I
.2.;; SUITE I O2 · " Ross M. CI-III~In·z A ’
Q II`; U TII§°;;TE§‘c|;:IESA EAsT MEAoow, NEw YORK I l 554 _ _
S SA ,EI_I_ICA A (5 I 6) 357·B IOO· *ALSO Aomirrao NJ -
KA FITZGERALD FAX (5 I 6) 357*8 I I II AAL.sc> Aumrrrzu CT I
\ g DA »_ GREGORYII OAI.s0 ADMITTED DC I i
KE _ HOLLAND 45 EssEx STREEI; SUITE 200 I
_I_ KANG HAcI lil'; IEEIZILIERN a 700 CANAI. STREI-Er =
STE A. S.¤II.1zMAn Smmrono, Coi~INEc"I1cLrr 06902 I
U · . STOGER
$ L E. °I-ARSON* I I
KI l
O December 17, 2003 E I
3 . 5%\ 3 g I
PIII I ` ‘ l
E rv p
Q) vm RNIGI-IT IIIIAII. °° Q. I
The Honorable Janet C. Hall afi ]> -
Ig United States District Judge We {
United States District Court *"*`°I;i .I.-: I
District of Connecticut '““ W E I
' 915 Lafayette Boulevard I
` VI Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 I
' · I
V) Re: Chapman v. Experian information Services, Inc. c F
and Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. f
& Case No.: 03 CV 316 (JCH)
C“~—I .
\§>_ S Dear‘Judge Hall:
x · r
Q We represent defendant Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase"). On I
E December 2, 2003, the court issued a revised confidentiality order. The final paragraph _
Q set forthjthe revisions plaintiff was ordered to incorporate into the prior confidentiality order .
so that a final confidentiality order could be entered by the court.
sgi By letter dated Decemeber 3, 2003, plaintiff requested that the court re-insert the I
I word “non-dispositive" in paragraph five of the confidentiality order. l-le argued that _
§documents used at trial or filed with a dispositive motion "belong to the public" and may not -
§ L be held under seal.
Q IQ Q`) Plaintiffs request to modify the order and insert language that preemptively unseals I I
‘} gconfidential documents conflicts with Second Circuit precedent. According to the Second j l
sg %Circult, a court should not modify a protective order absent an extraordinary circumstance I
éki _ I I
’j il? T ; 5 § L; L: L; L- L L - I -*-2,5;T:-TL?-V-{-)+-5-5755--5

i' l
_ l Case 3:03-cv-00316-JCH Document 75 Filed 01/05/2004 Page 2 of 3 N
The Honorable Janet C. Hall
December 17, 2003 I
Page 2 N
or a compelling need. E Securities & Exch. Comm’n v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, (
229 (2d Cir. 2001). l N
Moreover, docu ments supporting a dispositive motion do not automatically "belong
to the pubIic." Rather, documents material to a granted summary judgment motion N
deserve a presumption of access because they have been used in thejudicial process} N
gp The Diversified Group, |nc.v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152, 158-59 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) =
Nevertheless, they should only be unsealed ifthe court, after examining the documents, ‘
determines that they will help the public understand the judicial process and that the E
pubIic’s need for that understanding outweighs the need to keep the documents sealed. N
Spa United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995); Kelly v. The City of N.Y.,
2003 Wl. 548400 at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 24, 2003); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home N
Box Office, inc., 26 F Supp.2d 606, 612 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).2 Counts should be guided by N
whether the documents are generally available. g Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050. ,
Here, no summaryjudgment motions have been filed, let alone granted. Neitherthe
parties nor the court can yet identify which documents might be filed in connection with a
summaryjudgment motion. Inserting the word “non-dispositive" in the order would strip the ‘
court of its jurisdiction to examine each docu ment, determine whether access to it will help
the public understand the judicial process, and consider whether that understanding
outweighs the need to keep the documents secret. N
The cases plaintiff cites are inapposite. ln Foltz v. State Farm l\/lut. Automobile Ins.
gp, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.), the Ninth Circuit specifically limited its holding to "when
parties other than the original litigants may gain access to materiaIs" under protective seal. L
ln United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2001), a news company that was not a N
party to the criminal litigation sought access to videotapes. The court held that the _
company was entitled to copy the videotapes because they were already publicly played
during a pretrial hearing that was open to the public. Q. at 155-56.
Similarly, ln In re Sealed Case, 199 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 2000), a group of news
organizations sought a rule requiring the district court to establish a public docket ofgrand
jury ancillary proceedings. The court denied the request on the ground that there is no
precedent for a public docket of motions related to the grand jury. Q. at 526-27. The case
is limited to whether motions regarding the grand jury should be public. it has nothing to
do with whether documents supporting a dispositive motion in civil litigation should be
accessible to the public.
1 Documents submitted on a motion for summary judgment that is denied are entitled to a weak
presumption of access. Qg United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 151 (2d Cir. 2001).
2 A copy of Kelly v. The City of N.Y. is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.
·—. .. . F

. ...... ---.-- .. .... . ...... `
Case 3:03-cv-00316-JCH Document 75 Filed O1/05/2004 Page 3 of 3 l
The Honorable Janet C. Hall l
December 17, 2003
Page 3 J
For these reasons, it is respectfully requested that the court deny pIaintiff’s request
to have the word “non-dispositive" reinserted into paragraph five.
Respectf ub itted,
homas E. S agg
(Juris No. CT 23429)
cc; Joanne S. Faulkner, Esq.
(via overnight mail)
Sevan Ogulluk, Esq. {
Jones Day
(via overnight mail) i
chambers·itr0? \
l