Order | Filed: July 15, 2026
| Entered: July 15, 2026
Clark v. State of Connecticut et al
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 107 . Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration 107 regarding the court's Order 105 on his Motion for Protective Order to Seal 94 . In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff asks the court for "further clarification" of its order, and whether his earlier Motion for Protective Order was denied "because Mr. Clark has not proven to this court that the photographs exist, and/or has failed to provide this court with copies of the photographs." ECF No. 107 , 3-4. If so, Plaintiff asks for "adequate time to demonstrate entitlement to this relief." Id. at 4.
The court liberally construes this motion as a motion for clarification. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks clarification on the court's early order, that motion is granted and the court clarifies the following.
The court regards Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order to Seal 94 as a request for preliminary injunctive relief rather than a motion to seal. Motions to seal relate only to filings (e.g., pleadings, exhibits) that are placed on the docket in a case. Because court cases are public proceedings, all filings in a case are presumed to be public. If a party wishes to prevent the public from accessing a particular document that is filed in a case, they may file a motion to seal. If granted, the parties and the court may still access the sealed files, but the general public cannot access those files.
On the other hand, preliminary injunctive relief is a ruling issued by the court before final judgment that provides temporary relief to a party. An injunction orders a party to take an action or refrain from taking an action.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must make a clear showing that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of the equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 346 (2024) (citing Winter v. Nat'l Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).
Here, although Plaintiff styled his earlier motion as requesting a "protective order to seal," he was not asking the court to seal a filing that is already on the docket. Instead, he sought injunctive relief; specifically, an order preventing Defendants from publicly disclosing any photographs of Lillian Clark in their possession, even before any final judgment has been entered in this case. ECF No. 94 , at 3. Because the court has dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety, he cannot show "he is likely to succeed on the merits" for the purpose of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's Motion to Seal 94 was not denied solely because Plaintiff has not produced any evidence of the photographs themselves. The court denied the motion because the Complaint 1 , which the court has dismissed, does not support preliminary injunctive relief.
Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's earlier ruling on the Motion to Seal or seeks to supplement that Motion, the Motion for Reconsideration 107 is denied.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint remains due on August 17, 2026. Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 07/15/26. (ZJ)