Athan Tasoulas v. Demetrius Tasoulas (2016)

RULING ON MOTION TO SEAL (Doc. No. 109)

This case involves a dispute between two brothers.  The defendant moves the court to order that any files, affidavits, documents or other materials on file, and hereinafter lodged with the court in connection with this matter, be sealed and their disclosure limited to the court, its authorized personnel, the parties, and their respective counsel.  The grounds for the request are that the self-represented plaintiff's filings are “wild, irrelevant, ill-considered and outright defamatory.”  In particular, defendant complains that the plaintiff has filed inappropriate photographs of their father in his bed in a nursing home.

In ruling on a motion to seal all or any part of a court file after commencement of an action, Practice Book § 11–20A requires the applicant to prove, and the court to make findings on, several factors.  Each are discussed seriatim:  (1) Has the motion been calendared at least fifteen days after its filing so that the public had had notice of it, and of the time and place of the hearing on the motion (and thereby an opportunity to be heard on the motion)?  § 11–20A(e) and (f)(1).  Finding:  Yes;  (2) What is the interest sought to be protected—and claimed to override the public's interest in viewing the material sought to be sealed?  § 11–20A(c) and (d).  Defendant argues that the plaintiff's allegations are meritless, irrelevant and scandalous and that his family privacy interest outweighs the public's right to open courts.  Finding:  The court observes that the plaintiff is self-represented and that his pleadings are sometimes incoherent, rambling, irrelevant and accusatory, but they convey his point alleging fraud in the conveyance of certain property.  That a defendant might consider a plaintiff's allegations to be false and offensive is not unusual.  Defendant's vehement disagreements with the allegations do not rebut the presumption that documents filed with the court should be available to the public.  There are reasonable alternatives to a blanket seal;  (3) What, if any reasonable alternative to the requested order exist?  § 11–20A(c).  Finding:  The court can order the sealing of particular items as the need arises;  (4) If the court decides to grant the motion, is the order only as broad as necessary to protect the overriding interest?  Id. What more narrow remedies did the court consider and why is each of those unavailable or inadequate?  § 11–20A(f)(2) (alternatives to sealing entire file include redaction, partial sealing and use of pseudonyms instead of sealing).  Finding:  The court can order the sealing of the photographs of the father in the nursing home contained in plaintiff's objection (Doc. No. 108.00) to the defendant's motions to dismiss.  That is adequate as that is the only item that is abusive and unnecessary;  (5) Upon what specific facts does the court base its order?  § 11–20A(d).  Finding:  Plaintiff's Doc. No. 108.00 contains two photographs of the father depicting him in a nursing home bed sometimes intubation.  There is no justification for the inclusion of those photographs in the public filings in this case.  Their use is a gratuitous invasion of privacy designed to publicly shock and embarrass the defendant and is a misuse of the public filing procedure of the courts.  The privacy interest of the father, who is not a litigant, is also being abused.  These interests override the public's interest in viewing these items;  (6) What is the duration of the order?  Id. Finding:  The duration shall be until further order of the court;  (7) If any of the court's findings would reveal information which the court finds entitled to remain confidential, should those findings be sealed?  Id. Finding:  No. (7) The time, date, scope and duration of the order of sealing must be in writing, signed by the issuing judge, and immediately entered in the court file and, subject to sealing of findings under § 11–20A(d), posted on the Judicial Branch website and on a bulletin board accessible to the public and adjacent to the clerk's office.  Id. Finding:  For all of the above stated reasons, it is hereby ORDERED.

The defendant's motion to seal the entire file is denied, but the court shall order the sealing of the two photographs of the parties' father, depicting him in a bed in his nursing home sometimes intubated, which are contained in plaintiff's objection filed in the above captioned matter on March 21, 2016, in Doc. No. 108.00.  The duration of this order shall be until further order of the court, and shall be effective immediately.  The court orders that the entire Doc. No. 108.00 be sealed, and that the plaintiff file a redacted copy of the document within ten days of this order, subject to the sanctions referenced in Practice Book § 11–20B(b).

Robert F. Vacchelli

Judge, Superior Court

Vacchelli, Robert F., J.