Motion for Protective Order in Connecticut

What Is a Motion for Protective Order?

Background

“‘[T]he [trial] court's inherent authority to issue protective orders is embodied in Practice Book § 13-5....’” (Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009) 112 Conn. App. 8, 14-15 quoting Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. (2005) 276 Conn. 168, 221 n. 59.)

“‘[D]iscovery related protective orders ... are injunctive in nature. Such orders have both the force and effect of an injunction, and serve a similar equitable purpose, namely, to regulate prospectively the conduct of the parties, either by restraining them from acting or by requiring them to act under circumstances that, if not so regulated, could lead to unduly harmful consequences.... [O]nce issued, protective orders , like injunctions, need not remain in place permanently . . . and their terms are not immutable.’” (Peatie, id., citing Rosado at 214-15.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Practice Book 221 governs the scope of discovery and provides for protective orders. It states, that “[u]pon motion by a party from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court may make an order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

that the discovery not be had;
that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;
that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;
that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court;
that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;
that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.”

(Cahn v. Cahn (1992) 26 Conn. App. 720, 727 quoting Practice Book 221.)

Modification or Lifting of Protective Order

“It is well-settled that a trial court retains the power to modify or lift a protective order that it has entered.... Indeed, courts and commentators seem unanimous in finding ... [that courts have] an inherent power to modify discovery -related protective orders ... when circumstances justify.” (Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009) 112 Conn. App. 8, 14-15 quoting Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. (2005) 276 Conn. 168, 221 n. 59.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The use of protective orders and the extent of discovery is within the discretion of the trial judge.” (Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2009) 112 Conn. App. 8, 15 citing Lougee v. Grinnel (1990) 216 Conn. 483, 491.)

“[Connecticut Courts of Appeal] have long recognized that the granting or denial of a discovery request .... is subject to reversal only if such an order constitutes an abuse of that discretion.... [I]t is only in rare instances that the trial court's decision will be disturbed.... Therefore, [a reviewing court] must discern whether the [lower] court could [have] reasonably conclude[d] as it did.” (Peatie, supra, quoting Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc. (2006) 280 Conn. 1, 16-17.)

The Court’s Decision

In Cahn, the court found that “the basis for the protective order in ... was to protect the plaintiff from the ‘undue burden’ of having to attend a deposition in New York, which is a valid reason under Practice Book 221. Although the discovery being sought by the defendant was not from the plaintiff, the protective order was necessary to protect a party's interest. Accordingly, the plaintiff properly filed a motion for a protective order, to prevent the defendant from conducting depositions of nonparty witnesses.” (Cahn v. Cahn (1992) 26 Conn. App. 720, 728.)

“In order to determine whether the court abused its discretion by granting the plaintiff's motion for a protective order, [the appellate court] must review the basis for the court's ruling.... [Even when [t]he [lower] court ... granted the motion without comment. ‘The correctness of a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. [The reviewing court] [does not] presume error. The burden is on the appellant to prove harmful error.” (Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Bertrand (2013) 140 Conn. App. 646, 653-54 quoting Carothers v. Capozziello (1990) 215 Conn. 82, 105.)

Documents for Motion for Protective Order in Connecticut

Sort By

JACKSON,QUENTIN PPA v. MIA OR NIA LNU Et Al document preview

ORDER RESULT: Order 5/9/2024 HON KAREN GOODROW

1 page

ORDER 434439 DOCKET NO: NNHCV235055989S SUPERIOR COURT JACKSON,QUENTIN PPA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. AT NEW HAVEN MIA OR NIA LNU Et Al 5/9/2024 …