Coleen Mills v. John Mills (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The parties, both attorneys, are in the midst of a high conflict dissolution action.   The defendant husband has his own law practice, the Mills Law Firm L.L.C.¹ On several dates the court conducted hearings and listened to arguments regarding pre-trial discovery/production issues.   A forensic evaluator has been hired to value the defendant's business.   The business evaluator credibly testified regarding the need for specific records, documents, transaction data and other information being obtained by him and his firm in order to complete a financial valuation of the law firm and to form an expert opinion regarding the defendant's income.   Much of what has been requested by the plaintiff and her expert has been supplied but moving forward the defendant seeks a confidentiality agreement signed by both the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel.   In the defendant's memorandum of law the defendant claims his intent in seeking a confidentiality agreement is “to protect the identity of clients and employees of Mills Law Firm, LLC, and to ensure that confidential financial information pertaining to the business be used solely for the purposes of this litigation, and not disseminated to the general public.”   The plaintiff counters that no confidentiality agreement is necessary and she opposes signing any such agreement.   The court ordered that the parties file briefs on the issue and both parties were free to file proposed, acceptable confidentiality agreements.   Although the plaintiff initially declined to file a proposed confidentiality agreement, with the understanding that said filing was not implied or expressed acquiescence to any confidentiality agreement, the court received and has reviewed each party's proposed confidentiality agreement.

This court has read the parties' briefs in support of their respective positions.   The court questions its authority, but more to the point the logic behind, compelling an unwilling litigant or her attorney to sign an agreement of any kind;  compelling or ordering someone to do something they oppose renders it something other than an “agreement.”   However, as both sides point out in their briefs, Practice Book Section 13–5 ² authorizes this court ‘for good cause shown’ to ‘make any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.”

The court is quite confident that neither party nor their counsel has any intent to disseminate any of the requisite discovery and production material to the public nor to anyone other than those necessary to prepare and litigate this dissolution action and for the sole purpose of litigating this dissolution action.³  Hence it is the court's intent in fashioning the following protective order to afford the defendant husband the requested protection of his clients' and employees' information while at the same time to afford the plaintiff wife sufficient latitude for her, her attorney, the forensic evaluators and other entities hired or consulted regarding this dissolution litigation to obtain the information and access needed to prepare and litigate this case fully and effectively.

PROTECTIVE ORDER

(1) All information, including but not limited to document, records, logs, spreadsheets, printouts, whether electronic, written, computerized or otherwise, pertaining to the legal and business aspects of the Mills Law Firm LLC and as requested in # 20 and # 32 of plaintiff's “Information and Documents Request”, produced, shared and/or conveyed in any manner to the plaintiff and/or her attorney pursuant to the standing orders and/or pursuant to a specific order of this court shall be used solely for the purpose of litigating this dissolution action.

(2) Neither party shall maliciously or intentionally disseminate any discovery or production material, including but not limited to material referenced (# 1) above, to any party or entity not involved in the dissolution litigation or to the public.⁴

(3) The court recognizes that conveyance of some of the court-ordered discovery/production has already occurred.   It is the court's intent that the protective order pertaining to material/information already disclosed as well as to any material disclosed prospectively.   The court recognizes the effectiveness of the protective order commences on May 3, 2012.   Thus, any purported dissemination/disclosure of the protected material inconsistent with this protective order, prior to today's ruling, cannot constitute any alleged violation of this protective order.   However, the court notes that the litigants in this case and their attorneys are Officers of the Superior Court of Connecticut and as practicing members of the Connecticut Bar said attorneys are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct.   Said status affords each party the knowledge that as attorneys, they are bound by published professional ethical constraints both professionally and personally.

(4) Any violation of this protective order shall be subject to sanctions deemed appropriate by this court, including but not limited to temporary or injunctive relief.

(5) To the extent applicable, said protective order is reciprocal as to any discovery/production furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Bernadette Conway, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The plaintiff wife's affiliation with the Mills Law Firm terminated in the latter part of 2011..  FN1. The plaintiff wife's affiliation with the Mills Law Firm terminated in the latter part of 2011.

FN2. P.B. section 13–5 applies to family matters pursuant to P.B. sec. 25–31..  FN2. P.B. section 13–5 applies to family matters pursuant to P.B. sec. 25–31.

FN3. The court has carefully considered the plaintiff's contention that no confidentiality agreement and/or protective order is necessary.   The court concedes the Judicial Branch's website identifies by name the defendant's firm's cases by plaintiff/defendant name.   In fashioning the protective order the court's intent is to balance the need for full discovery and disclosure with the intent to limit the dissemination of the firm's client and employee information to only what is absolutely necessary to fully and effectively litigate this dissolution action.   Although, arguably, said protective order may be viewed as unnecessary, in an attempt to facilitate the efficient and optimal progress of the litigation of this contentious case, while simultaneously assuring that the sensitive aspects of the defendant's clients' and employees' information remain ‘confidential’ to the maximum extent possible, said protective issue shall issue..  FN3. The court has carefully considered the plaintiff's contention that no confidentiality agreement and/or protective order is necessary.   The court concedes the Judicial Branch's website identifies by name the defendant's firm's cases by plaintiff/defendant name.   In fashioning the protective order the court's intent is to balance the need for full discovery and disclosure with the intent to limit the dissemination of the firm's client and employee information to only what is absolutely necessary to fully and effectively litigate this dissolution action.   Although, arguably, said protective order may be viewed as unnecessary, in an attempt to facilitate the efficient and optimal progress of the litigation of this contentious case, while simultaneously assuring that the sensitive aspects of the defendant's clients' and employees' information remain ‘confidential’ to the maximum extent possible, said protective issue shall issue.

FN4. This order is not limited to # 20 and # 32 of the plaintiff's Information and Document Request but extends to all disclosures made pursuant to the automatic orders and any other specific orders of this court..  FN4. This order is not limited to # 20 and # 32 of the plaintiff's Information and Document Request but extends to all disclosures made pursuant to the automatic orders and any other specific orders of this court.

Conway, Bernadette, J.