Staff Writer – Alex Wood
WATERBURY — A state judge Tuesday issued a protective order preventing a former high level computer administrator at a private school in Kent and others involved in his criminal case from publicly naming several plaintiffs in lawsuits against the school.
Daniel Clery, the former computer administrator at the Kent School, was charged last June with two counts of first-degree computer crime, according to papers in civil court. The charges are based on allegations of unauthorized access to a computer system and misuse of computer system information, according to a civil lawsuit filed in February for three former students at the school.
Papers in the criminal case against Clery have been under seal after he applied for accelerated rehabilitation, a pretrial diversion program that can lead to dismissal of the charges after the defendant makes efforts at rehabilitation.
Unlike protective orders issued in many criminal cases, which bar defendants from contact with their alleged victims, the judge’s order only prevents Clery and others involved in his criminal case from publicly naming plaintiffs in the lawsuits who have been granted anonymity, officials say.”
Clery’s lawyer also withdrew his client’s application for the accelerated rehabilitation program after the state’s prosecutor, Amy Bepko, objected that Clery was ineligible. First-degree computer crime is a class B felony, which would make Clery ineligible for the accelerated rehabilitation program.
The withdrawal of Clery’s application for accelerated rehabilitation means the criminal case file likely will be unsealed.
The suit, filed by lawyers David S. Golub and Jennifer B. Goldstein of the Silver Golub & Teitell law firm, alleges that Clery improperly obtained access to the former students’ computerized information, possibly including “highly private and sensitive photographs and videos.”
The suit, which seeks to become a class action, is one of three that have been filed against the Litchfield County boarding school, which also takes day students, over allegations that Clery misused computerized information that he gained access to through his job there.
The same firm filed another suit in February on behalf of a Kent School employee, who it says is on leave because of her “extreme stress and anxiety” over the events at issue, court records show.
A third suit, filed in February by lawyer Joel T. Faxon on behalf of two other former students, also seeks to become a class action, records show.
The Silver, Golub suit on behalf of the three former students alleges that a state police search of computers belonging to Clery uncovered “3,670 personal image files that either belong to or depict current and former Kent School students.” It also says his computers contained screenshots of text messages and emails.
Images of students naked or scantily clad
Some of the files “included images of female students naked, wearing lingerie/underwear, and wearing bikini bathing suits,” the complaint alleges.
An investigation by a private cybersecurity firm hired by the Kent School found that Clery had gained access to and copied personal files of “81 Kent community members,” 79 of them female, according to the complaint. It adds that one of the two males was dating one of the females, now a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The complaint says Clery accessed personal files of 70 current and former students and 11 current and former employees of the school.
The complaint says those affected will have “to hire data removal specialists to scour the internet and remove their personal information.”
The complaint alleges that a female Kent School employee who was having Wi-Fi trouble in spring or summer 2022 left Clery working on her office laptop computer and returned to find him viewing photos stored in her personal Google account. Clery quickly closed the screen, the complaint says.
It says the employee was “very distressed” and informed her Kent School supervisor about the incident.
But the complaint alleges “upon information and belief” that neither the supervisor nor anyone else at the Kent School took action at that point. It says Clery, described as the school’s network and systems administrator, continued to have “the highest level of access to Kent School’s network and systems, including access to student and employee laptops.”
8-month delay alleged
Some eight months later, on Feb. 21, 2023, the complaint says, Clery approached the same employee and said he was checking the school’s antivirus software and needed access to her school-issued laptop computer, the complaint says. After he left her office, the complaint says, the woman received an email notifying her that software called RClone had been granted permission to access her Google account, which she had not authorized.
The employee notified the head of the school’s information technology department, who in turn contacted Clery, the complaint says. It says Clery explained that he was using RClone to copy the school’s antivirus logs and must have accidentally configured it to access the woman’s Google account, an explanation the complaint calls “patently fallacious.”
That same day, after the woman returned from lunch, the complaint says, she found Clery waiting for her, and he asked to access her laptop again. This time, it says, she stood next to him as he worked and saw his cellphone, on the desk next to him, light up with her vacation photos “clearly visible in the gallery view” on the phone.
When the woman asked why her photos were on his phone, he replied, “I don’t know. I’m sorry,” the complaint says.
The woman immediately reported this incident, and the school “belatedly initiated an internal investigation of Clery’s conduct,” the complaint says, adding that the school terminated his employment six days later, on Feb. 27, 2023.
The complaint faults the school for acting only eight months after first being notified of Clery’s “disturbing behavior.”
It alleges that the school’s handling of the situation was negligent, reckless and implicated it in invasion of privacy and computer crimes, among other things.
The suit seeks monetary compensation for the affected students as well as punitive damages, triple damages and the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs.
The complaint quotes Jeffrey D. Cataldo, the associate head of the school, as saying in an Oct. 11, 2024, letter to the school community that the school “fell short” in its commitment to community members’ safety, including protection of personal information, “as it relates to the Dan Cleary (sic) matter.”
Clarification: This story has been updated to clarify that the protective order prohibits the defendant and anyone else involved in the case from publicly naming the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.