Opinion
No. X05 CV 05 4006596 S
October 2, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDERS RE OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' REOUEST FOR DOCUMENTS (163.00)
The court makes the following orders with respect to the defendant James Marquez's objections to the plaintiffs' Request For Documents. The court understands that the defendant Marquez is now to be sentenced in the case of United States v. James G. Marquez, 06 Cr. 1138 (S.D.N.Y.) on October 25, 2007. Sentencing has been postponed several times. The court has not been made aware of any other pending or impending criminal prosecutions of Marquez. Therefore, the court's orders set forth below have prospectively overruled objections based on the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article First, Section 8 of the Connecticut Constitution, and the court orders production of documents three weeks after sentence has been imposed in the above-referenced criminal case. The case law cited by the defendant does not support the contention that the Fifth Amendment protection extends beyond sentencing. In Burritt Interfinancial Bancorporation v. Brooke Point Associates, 42 Conn.Sup. 445 (1992) [ 7 Conn. L. Rptr. 151] Judge Blue granted motions for protective orders against asset disclosure requests made by a plaintiff in an effort to enforce a judgment of almost $2 million. The defendants had recently pleaded guilty to federal crimes and invoked the protections of the Connecticut Constitution against self-incrimination. Correctly noting that the protection of Article First, Section 8 is broader than that afforded by the Fifth Amendment, Judge Blue also found that the possibility of further prosecution by Connecticut authorities or other federal prosecutions was not so negligible as to be confidently disregarded. Id., 449. While little can be predicted with total confidence, this case presents a different scenario. The events giving rise to this lawsuit and the criminal case took place, or least came to light, two years ago, and as noted no other prosecutions or likely prosecutions have risen, or been brought to the court's notice. Additionally, far from having a judgment the plaintiffs here have not even succeeded in getting the pleadings closed. Therefore, this court finds little likelihood of further prosecution at this date, and that the interests of the plaintiffs must be taken into account to some degree.
The objections to plaintiffs' document requests are ruled on as follows: (S=sustained; O=overruled):
Request No. Ruling
1. O 2. O 3. S 4. S 5. O 6. O 7. S, as to events occurring before April 2002 8. S, as to events occurring before April 2002 9. S, as to events occurring before April 2002 10. S 11. S, as to events occurring before April 2002 12. S 13. S 14. S 15. O 16. S 17. O 18. S 19. O 20. S 21. O 22. S 23. S 24. S 25. O 26. S 27. O 28. S 29. S 30. S 31. O 32. S 33. S 34. S 35. S 36. S 37. S 38. S 39. S 40. S 41. S 42. S 43. S 44. S 45. S 46. S 47. S 48. S 49. S 50. O 51. O 52. S 53. O 54. S 55. O 56. S 57. O 58. S 59. O 60. S 61. O 62. S 63. O 64. S 65. O 66. S 67. S 68. O 69. S 70. S 71. O 72. S 73. O 74. S 75. S 76. S 77. O 78. S 79. O 80. S 81. S 82. S 83. S 84. S 85. O 86. S 87. O 88. S 89. O 90. S 91. O 92. S 93. O 94. S 95. S 96. S 97. O 98. O 99. S 100. O 101. S 102. S, as to events occurring before 1996 only 103. S 104. S, as to events occurring before 1996 only 105. S 106. S 107. S 108. S 109. S 110. S 111. S 112. S 113-132. S