Rosado v. BRIDGEPORT ROMAN CATHOLIC

884 A.2d 981

276 Conn. 168

George ROSADO et al. v. BRIDGEPORT ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN CORPORATION et al.

J. Knecht v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation et al.

In re Application of the New York Times Company for Order Vacating Protective Orders and Requiring Filing of Discovery Materials.

Nos. 17059, 17060.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 22, 2004.

Decided November 15, 2005.

Ralph G. Elliot, Hartford, for the appellant in Docket No. SC 17059 (The Hartford Courant Company).

Jonathan M. Albano, pro hac vice, with whom were James S. Rollins, Boston, MA, and, on the brief, Kimberly M. White, Hartford, for the appellants in Docket No. SC 17060 (The New York Times Company et al.). John B. Farley, with whom were Ralph W. Johnson III and, on the brief, Joseph T. Sweeney, Hartford, James F. Stapleton and James V. Somers, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).

Robert G. Golger, Fairfield, for the appellees (defendant Charles Carr et al.).

John F. Conway, with whom was W. Glen Pierson, Wallingford, for the appellees (John Doe I et al.).

SULLIVAN, C.J., and PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and LICARI, Js.

PALMER, J.

Under General Statutes ž 52-212a,¹ a civil judgment or decree may not be opened or set aside more than four months after it has been rendered unless the trial court has continuing jurisdiction over the case in which the judgment or decree has been rendered.² This certified appeal presents an important issue of first impression, namely, whether under ž 52-212a, a trial court has continuing jurisdiction to vacate a protective order, upon motion of a third party, pertaining to documents in the court's possession that relate to a case that has been withdrawn more than four months prior to the filing of the motion to vacate the protective order. We conclude that a trial court has continuing jurisdiction in such circumstances. Because the Appellate Court reached a contrary conclusion; see Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 77 Conn.App. 690, 723-24, 825 A.2d 153 (2003); we reverse its judgment.

This case presents a unique, and somewhat convoluted, procedural history, beginning with the filing, in the mid-1990s, of twenty-three lawsuits alleging sexual abuse of minors by clergymen employed by the Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation (Diocese).³ In the course of pretrial discovery in those cases, all of which were pending in the Waterbury judicial district, the trial court, Levin, J., issued sealing and protective orders⁴ with respect to certain documents and information that had been obtained by counsel. During the course of the litigation of those cases, and in accordance with those orders, the parties filed with the court numerous sealed documents for review by the court in connection with its adjudication of various motions. On March 12, 2001, prior to trial, all of the lawsuits were settled and withdrawn, with prejudice.

On March 26, 2002, The New York Times Company (Times), publisher of The New York Times, filed an "emergency motion" with the clerk's office of the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury seeking permission to intervene in three of those twenty-three withdrawn actions, namely, Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV-93-0157085-S, See v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV-93-0157363-S, and Fleetwood v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV-95-0156274-S. The Times also sought in its motion an "order vacating orders previously entered in [those] cases sealing judicial documents, including evidentiary materials submitted in connection with summary judgment motions and other matters ruled upon by the court ...."⁵ The motion stated that the Times also was "seeking leave to file a consolidated omnibus motion requesting identical relief in the ... twenty other sex abuse cases to which the [Diocese] is a party."⁶

Among the protective orders that the Times sought to have vacated were those that had been issued in the Rosado case on December 8, 1994, and in the Fleetwood case on October 23, 1997. Those protective orders, which were identical, provided, inter alia, that information and materials obtained by the parties through the depositions of the defendants⁷ and certain other persons were not to be disclosed or disseminated to non-parties "[u]ntil further order of the court, which order shall be made not later than the completion of jury selection ...."⁸ The orders further provided that any document filed with the court containing information covered by those orders was to be filed under seal.⁹ The trial court, McWeeny, J.,¹⁰ scheduled a hearing on the Times' motion for April 24, 2002. Prior to that hearing, however, on April 18, 2002, the Times filed an application with the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury providing, inter alia, that, "[p]ursuant to the request of the office of the clerk of court for the judicial district of Waterbury ... [the Times] respectfully applies to the court to open a separate case file for the maintenance of court filings related to the Times' motion dated March 26, 2002 ... previously filed in [the Rosado, See and Fleetwood cases] ...." The Times explained that it was requesting the court to open a new file in light of the Times' understanding that the "court intends that future filings related to the [Times' March 26, 2002] motion, or to similar matters in the [twenty-three withdrawn cases], be directed to this newly created case file to facilitate the court's administrative handling of these matters."

On April 22, 2002, The Hartford Courant Company (Courant), publisher of The Hartford Courant, filed a motion to intervene in the Rosado, See and Fleetwood cases. The motion indicated that the Courant sought to join the Times' motion for the purpose of raising the same claims that the Times had raised in its March 26, 2002 motion.

On April 23, 2002, the Diocese filed objections to the Times' March 26, 2002 motion and to the Times' April 18, 2002 application to open a new file. In its objection to the Times' motion, the Diocese stated that it also was objecting "on behalf of all individual defendants" for whom two specified law firms had appeared in the twenty-three lawsuits including the Rosado, Fleetwood and See cases. With regard to the Times' motion, the Diocese maintained, inter alia, that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Times' claim that the protective orders should be vacated because the Times had not filed the motion within the four month limitation period enumerated in ž 52-212a.¹¹ With respect to the Times' application to open a new case file, the Diocese asserted that: "(1) the court no longer has jurisdiction over [the withdrawn] actions ... and thus cannot undertake any further proceedings in them; (2) the Times has not been and should not be granted intervenor status in [the withdrawn] actions ... and thus is not entitled to any substantive or procedural relief of any sort; and (3) granting the Times' application could arguably impair the Diocese's rights to object to the Times' motion based [on] the issues of jurisdiction and intervention."¹² In summarizing its objection to the Times' application, the Diocese asserted that the court "should not take a case that was withdrawn long ago, breathe new life into it, and convert it into a separate, new case that might appear to eliminate jurisdictional barriers and hurdles to intervention."

On April 24, 2002, the trial court held a hearing to address both the Times' March 26, 2002 motion and its application to open a new file. At the outset of the hearing, the court announced that, because the twenty-three cases had been withdrawn more than one year earlier, it would docket both the motion and the application in a new file. The court assured the parties, however, that, in opening the new file, it was "not deciding the jurisdictional claims of the [Diocese] ...." The court thereupon requested the parties to address the jurisdictional issue. Counsel for the Diocese, however, indicated that he first wished to address the court's decision to open the new file. Counsel then urged the court to reconsider that decision, asserting that, despite the court's assurances to the contrary, any action that the court might take in that matter necessarily would affect the withdrawn cases, thereby constituting "an end run around the jurisdictional issue on part of the applicant ...."¹³ The court responded that "these applications need to be addressed in open court, and the means of doing that, the most expeditious way, is to open a new file...." After reiterating that the opening of a new file was "not a resolution of the jurisdictional issue," the court stated, "we're going to address [the jurisdictional issue] now."

The court then proceeded to hear the parties on the issue of jurisdiction. The Diocese asserted that, because the Times had failed to file a motion to open or to restore the withdrawn cases to the docket within the four month limitation period of ž 52-212a, the Times' claims were foreclosed by that statutory provision. In response, the Times argued that ž 52-212a was not a bar to the relief sought because the court had continuing jurisdiction over the cases by virtue of its inherent authority to modify and to enforce court orders that are injunctive in nature and that previously had been issued in those cases.

At the conclusion of the argument on the issue of jurisdiction, the court stated: "We'll continue with [a] discussion on the merits. I believe [this court has] jurisdiction, certainly with respect to what is in the clerk's office in sealed envelopes.... So we will move on to the merits."¹⁴ Counsel for the Diocese then asked: "What Your Honor just said is not a ruling, it's going to be...