United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RICHARD M. COAN, Plaintiff-Trustee,
v.
SEAN DUNNE et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE ADMISSION OF FAMILY LAW DOCUMENTS
JEFFREY ALKER MEYER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is
an action by the Bankruptcy Trustee principally alleging
fraudulent transfers of money and property by Sean Dunne to
his wife Gayle Killilea and others. See Coan v.
Dunne, 2019 WL 302674, at *1-*2 (D. Conn. 2019)
(generally describing the history of this case). Defendants
have now moved in limine (Docs. #445 and #457) to
preclude the admission of certain “family law
documents” that have been produced to the Trustee in
redacted form from the family law courts in Ireland and
Switzerland. The Trustee in turn has filed a sealed
memorandum (Doc. #454) regarding the family law documents
that explains the basis for which the Trustee believes each
of the proposed family law exhibits are admissible, and the
Trustee has also separately moved that the family law
documents be admitted under seal consistent with the
confidentiality protections of Irish and Swiss law (Doc.
#417).[1]
Motions
in limine to preclude admission of family law
documents
I have
reviewed each of the Trustee's family law document
exhibits (Exhs. #71, #235, #445, #475, #716, #916, #1083,
#1142, #1143, #1392, #2074, #2122 and #2123). For the reasons
set forth at length in the Trustee's memorandum, I
conclude pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 401 that each
of these documents is relevant. These documents are highly
probative to the extent that they reflect on the financial
condition and the assessment by Sean Dunne and Gayle Killilea
of their financial conditions during time periods that are at
issue in this litigation. In addition, these documents also
shed light on the nature of the relationship between Sean
Dunne and Gayle Killilea, which may be significant to the
jury's consideration of the intent underlying the
transactions at issue in this case.
Although
defendants contend that the family law documents will be
unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and
404(b), they do not particularize why this is so. My own
review of these documents does not disclose scandalous or
inflammatory material that might tempt the jury to reach a
verdict on grounds not properly relevant to this litigation.
Any possibility of unfair prejudice does not substantially
outweigh the probative value of these documents.
Defendants
complain that the family law documents have been redacted and
that they should have access to the unredacted versions.
According to the Trustee, however, defendants have previously
had such access to the unredacted versions of the documents,
and it seems to me that this is self-evidently so because
Dunne himself was a party to the Irish family court
proceedings and Killilea was a “notice party” who
furnished statements for these proceedings. The redactions
were not made by the Trustee, and I am not convinced that the
redactions are unfair to any party.
Relatedly,
defendants complain that the rule of completeness under
Federal Rule of Evidence 106 requires the production or use
at trial of unredacted versions of the documents. See
United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46, 84-85 (2d Cir.
2012). According to the Trustee, however, the redactions in
these documents were performed in the first instance by Dunne
and Killilea prior to their production to NAMA and ultimately
to the Trustee. Doc. #454 at 5. And because defendants do not
demonstrate prejudice from any redactions, there is no basis
to conclude that the fairness concerns of Rule 106 are
implicated here.
Defendants
also complain that the Trustee has “cherry
picked” certain family law documents to be introduced
in this case while not seeking to introduce others. But they
do not explain or substantiate their claim that there are
additional family law documents to which they do not have
access that would be helpful to them. For example, the
Killilea defendants argue that “thousands of Family Law
Documents and court transcripts tell a different story,
” Doc. #457 at 2, but then do nothing to describe what
“story” such “thousands” of documents
would tell. Again, Dunne and Killilea were participants in
these family law proceedings, and their failure to articulate
what additional family law documents would be helpful to them
suggests that there is little of substance to the stated
concerns.
In
short, I will deny defendants' motions to preclude the
family law documents. I conclude that they are relevant under
Rule 401, that they are not unfairly prejudicial under Rule
403 or Rule 404(b), and that their admission in redacted form
will not violate the rule of completeness under Rule
106.[2]
Sealing
of family law documents and related testimony and
presentation
In
accordance with the protections of the “in
camera rule” required under Irish and Swiss law
for family court proceedings, I will grant the Trustee's
motion (Doc. #417) to admit the family law documents under
seal and with instructions to the jury concerning their
highly confidential nature. At such time that the Trustee
seeks to introduce any family law document and that any party
wishes to question any witness with specific reference to
such documents, counsel shall first seek leave of the Court
to seal the courtroom solely for this limited purpose and
duration. Similarly, to the extent that counsel wishes to
make specific reference to the family law documents during
the course of arguments to the Court or any opening and
closing statement to the jury, counsel shall seek leave of
the Court to seal the courtroom solely for this limited
purpose and duration.
In
light of Irish and Swiss law and very specific requests
received from Irish courts and authorities for the treatment
of family law records (Doc. #436 at 14-15), as well as the
traditional protections accorded to family law matters under
U.S. law, I conclude that there are compelling reasons to
allow the family law documents and related testimony to be
received into evidence under seal and notwithstanding the
presumptive right of public access under the First Amendment
and common law to judicial documents and proceedings. See
Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 164-65 (2d
Cir. 2013). Moreover, I conclude that the sealing measures
outlined in this ruling are narrowly tailored to serve these
compelling reasons for sealing. I do not agree with the
Trustee's and Killilea defendants' suggestion that
the entire trial should be closed to the public,
because this measure would be overbroad and inconsistent with
the right of public access to federal court proceedings.
Conclusion
For the
foregoing reasons, except to the extent that this ruling
allows for defendants to interpose certain objections to
Exhibits #1143, #2122 and #2123, the Court DENIES
defendants' motions in limine to preclude
admission of family law documents (Docs. #445 and #457). The
Court GRANTS the ...