Balerna v. Bosco

Gianna BALERNA v. Benjamin BOSCO

No. HHDCV176082264S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

December 6, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

OPINION

Sheridan, J.

Presently before the court are dual motions, filed by the plaintiff and the defendant, for permission to proceed with pseudonyms used in place of the true names of the parties. The matter was docketed and noticed to the public pursuant to Conn. Practice Book § 11-20A(h)(3) for the docket call on October 23, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. No member of the public requested an opportunity to be heard on this matter. No evidence was presented by the parties at the hearing. The court makes its findings solely on the basis of the complaint and the representations made in the motions.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that in the fall of 2015, while the plaintiff and defendant were students at the University of Connecticut, the defendant initiated sexual activity with the plaintiff while she was intoxicated and/or under the influence of marijuana, and unable to consent. The defendant flatly denies the plaintiffs’ allegations.

In seeking to proceed anonymously, the plaintiff contends that she " has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary presumption of openness in judicial proceedings, particularly due to the sensitivity of the issues involved in this case, the stigmatization of being the victim of an alleged rape, and the irreparable damage that continuing as a named plaintiff will entail."

The defendant asserts that by being associated with the plaintiff’s allegations, he " faces unjust collateral consequences, such as further damage to his reputation in the community, stigmatization and accompanying effects on his educational and employment prospects."

Practice Book § 11-20A(h)(1) provides in relevant part: " Pseudonyms may be used in place of the name of a party or parties only if the judicial authority concludes that such order is necessary to preserve an interest which is determined to override the public’s interest in knowing the name of the party or parties. The judicial authority shall first consider reasonable alternatives to any such order and any such order shall be no broader than necessary to protect such overriding interest. The judicial authority shall articulate the overriding interest being protected and shall specify its finding underlying such order and the duration of such order. If any findings would reveal information entitled to remain confidential, those finding may be set forth in a sealed portion of the record ... An agreement of the parties that pseudonyms be used shall not constitute a sufficient basis for the issuance of such an order."

Our Supreme Court discussed the standard for use of pseudonyms in Doe v. Connecticut Bar Examining Committee, 263 Conn. 39, 818 A.2d 14 (2003). The court acknowledged that " [t]he presumption of openness of court proceedings which is implicated in applications to proceed anonymously is a fundamental principle of our judicial system." Id. at 65, 818 A.2d 14. The court concluded that the following balancing test is to be applied by the...