Free Order on Motion to Seal Case - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 46.6 kB
Pages: 1
Date: February 5, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 398 Words, 2,522 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9737/132.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Seal Case - District Court of Connecticut ( 46.6 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Seal Case - District Court of Connecticut
I , ‘ %‘z§s);’3:0O-cv—O1098-SRU Document 132 Filed 02/?§2004 PawdA¢f6S7ém¤7'
= 9
Q wu __ .,,l . II. -
I~· I
gc iQ
_g § UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT II _LI A I0; Ob
ig g DISTRICT or: corxrrvrscricur IIIIIII WU If
$2 . I
= “ -------------------............. - .............................. X (ji} I;II;»_II ._ -~I_-»jI¤,I;;1·i.Ir.n" .
E John Doe, ; I_llll€IF.r- e‘.- "` —I ‘ j
*¤ Plaintiff · I
0 :1 ·
E E vs. : Civil Action No.: 3:00 CV-01096(SRU) I
I § ,§ UNUlVIProvident Corporation f/k/a
2 ag Provident Companies, Inc., : I
`§ I-S The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, 1 I
E Q Provident Life and Accident Insurance ; I
Q5 E Company of America : I
E § and Qlbhn Hancock Mutual Life Insurance : I
3; E Company, :
E I: -· · .
S -5 I __ _ gpefendants . _
E §. ,4 -——-—— C ; ---——-—— 4 ——---------—--———------—-—----—~-—-----——--- x February 3,2004
E-·I un · I ·
' `E · I- " i.`:
E 2 `II II i` till · g ? MOTION TO SEAL COURT FILE
H ,_, { L. * { I?}.
`§ § For rnsrreasons set forth below, plaintiff hereby moves to seal the Court file.
¤ 3 '
*§ Defendants do not object to this motion. I
BI Q
E The decision whether to seal a judicial record is, at least with respect to the common
.,.4 Q I
law right of access, committed to the discretion of the district court, a discretion to be I
"‘ ¤·r
§ “ exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. Nixon v. Q
s E r
§ E Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599, 98 S.Ct. 1306,1312-13 (1978). (That
0 g II
E ;"·§ I right is even weaker with regard to portions of the court file, such as the pretrial compliance
F -5 z {
E ha;. JI ' and motions in Iimine, which were not the basis for a judicial decision. §e_g Anderson v.
L': I-I
jéj .g Cggovac Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 13 (1st Cir.1986) (restricting common law right of access to I
`
3 § "ngaterials on which a court relies in determining the |itigants' substantive rights").) I
E 11 ,_ `° al
§ -5 I I\/Igreover, a federal judge has the power to seal files when necessary to encourage the `
Ei? is
E E2 ra. éa I
i : ¤ § I
····· Us
QE? ag? I
Q *' nr-r P: Q
EEE £§s
` I