Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00383-WIG Document 67 Filed 02/12/2004 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
WASLEY PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:O3CV383 (DJS)
ET AL. )
` )
vs. )
)
BARRY LEONARD BULAKITES, ET AL. ) FEBRUARY 12, 2004
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE
TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
The Plaintiffs hereby obj ect to the Motion for Order Permitting Motion for Leave to
Withdraw Appearance To Be Filed Under Seal, dated January 23, 2004 (the "Motion for
Order").
In the Motion for Order, Reid and Riege, P.C. (“R&R")l has moved the Court for an
_ order permitting it to file a Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance (the "Motion to
Withdraw") under seal. As the sole basis for the Motion for Order, R&R suggests that "the
papers filed in support of said Motion may contain information protected by the attomey-client
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
I Reid and Riege, P.C. appears to have been misidentified as the movant; attorneys Maurice T. FitzMaurice and
Peter Rydel, rather than the law firm of Reid and Riege, P.C., tiled Appearances on behalf of the Defendants Barry
Leonard Bulakites, James Albert Winslow and Joshua Adams Corporation.
A COHN BIRNBAUM & SHEA RC. • ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 100 PEARL STREET • HARTFORD, CT 06103-4500 • (860) 493—2200 • JURIS NO. 10163

Case 3:03-cv-00383-WIG Document 67 Filed 02/12/2004 Page 2 of 4
and/or attorney work-product privi1ege." Motion for Order at 1 (emphasis added). R&R further
. requests that any hearing held in connection with the Motion to Withdraw be held "in camera
and ex parte, with only R&R and R&R’s clients in attendance." Motion for Order at 2. R&R
suggests only that this ex parte hearing is necessary "to ensure that all privileged
communications and documents in the hands of R&R and its clients are protected from
disc1osure." kl. However, R&R fails to identify, even generally: (1) any of the documents that it
contends "may contain" privileged information; (2) why these documents would be required to
support its Motion to Withdraw; or (3) why in this instance — as opposed to virtually every other
hearing held before the Court — the unusual provision of an ex parte hearing could possibly be
necessary to protect these unidentified "privileged communications and documents in the hands
of R&R and its clients."
‘ "Both the common law and the first amendment protect the public’s right of access to
court documents." Vassiliades v. Israely, 714 F. Supp. 604, 605 (D. Conn. 1989) (@g _1\
ofNew York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 977 (1988);
United States v. Gerena, 703 F. Supp. 211, 212-13 (D. Comi. 1988)). "[C]ourt documents may
be sealed only if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential
to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." gi. at 605-06 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). Moreover, even in cases where the movant is able
to demonstrate that sealing particular documents is warranted, "only that portion" of the
document which requires protection should be sealed. Ld. at 606.
2
COHN BIRNBAUM & SHEA RC. • ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 100 PEARL STREET • HARTFORD, CT 06103-4500 • (860) 493-2200 • JURIS NO. 10163

Case 3:03-cv-00383-WIG Document 67 Filed 02/12/2004 Page 3 of 4
Here, R&R cannot even say with certainty that its supporting papers contain confidential
information. The Court should not allow the Motion to Withdraw to be filed under seal where
there is no clearly privileged information to protect. Until R&R identifies the privileged material
which it wishes to offer in support of its Motion to Withdraw, and demonstrates that the offered
material is both necessary to the Motion to Withdraw and "essential to preserve higher values,"
the Motion for Order should be denied. In the event that R&R is able to identify some
compelling justification for sealing its submission, then only the specific portions of those
documents that require protection should be filed under seal.
WASLEY PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED
and PRECISION MOLDING COMPANY, INC.,
THE PLAINTIFFS
By: /s/ Mag; E.R. Bartholic
Mary E.R. Bartholic (ctl 75 l 8)
Cohn Birnbaum & Shea P.C.
100 Pearl Street
Hartford, Cormecticut 06103
Telephone: 860/493-2200
Facsimile: 860/727-0361
Email: [email protected]
3
COHN BIRNBAUM & SHEA RC. •ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 100 PEARL STREET • HARTFORD, CT 06103-4500 • (860) 493-2200 • JURIS NO. 10163

Case 3:03-cv-00383-WIG Document 67 Filed 02/12/2004 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on February 12, 2004, copies of the foregoing Memorandum in
Opposition to Motion For Order Permitting Motion For Leave to Withdraw Appearance To Be
Filed Under Seal were sent by First Class mail, postage prepaid, to:
Maurice T. FitzMaurice, Esq.
Peter K. Rydel, Esq.
Reid & Riege, P.C.
One Financial Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103-3185
Deborah S. Freeman, Esq.
Bryan D. Short, Esq.
Bingham McCutchen LLP
One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3178
Eric L. Sussman, Esq.
Albert Zakarian, Esq.
Victoria Woodin Chavey, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard
CityPlace
Hartford, CT 06103-3499
/s/ Mag; E.R. Bartholic
Mary E.R. Bartholic
MERB/122613 67783.009
4
COHN BIRNBAUM & SHEA RC. •ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 100 PEARL STREET • HARTFORD, CT 06103-4500 • (860) 493-2200 • JURIS NO. 10163