Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** GEORGE L. ROSADO ET AL. v. BRIDGEPORT ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN CORPORATION ET AL. (AC 18669)
Mihalakos, Zarella and Dupont, Js. Argued April 24--officially released October 3, 2000 Counsel

Mark R. Kravitz, with whom were Eileen R. Becker and, on the brief, Suzanne E. Wachsstock, for the appellants (proposed intervenors John Doe et al.). William F. Gallagher, with whom were Cindy L. Robinson and, on the brief, Barbara L. Cox and Frank A. Bailey, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Opinion

DUPONT, J. This is an appeal from the denial of the motion of seven priests to intervene in an action brought by the plaintiffs against the Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation (Diocese) and others for damages for alleged sexual abuse by a particular priest when he was assigned to various churches within the Diocese.1 The seven priests seek to intervene as of right or permissively for the limited purpose of arguing motions to quash, for a protective order and to prevent

disclosure of private, confidential material contained in their personnel records.2 The disclosure that the seven priests3 seek to protect relates to information about them contained in records in the possession of the defendants about ``all complaints, accusations, allegations, reports and rumors concerning sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, sexual assault, inappropriate touching, inappropriate fondling, sexual overtures or any sexual impropriety or alleged impropriety. . . .'' The information was sought by subpoena, interrogatory and production requests directed to the Diocese. The issue is whether the seven priests should be allowed to intervene to protest the production of the records on the alleged grounds that the records are protected from disclosure by the United States constitution, the constitution of Connecticut, Connecticut statutes and the common law.4 The plaintiffs and the seven priests present compelling arguments for their different answers to this question. The court denied the motion of the seven priests because ``[i]t is not necessary for the movants to intervene, thereby becoming parties in the underlying action, in order to obtain the relief they seek. As nonparty persons to be deposed, they may be entitled to this relief under . . . Practice Book

Download Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp..pdf

Connecticut Law