FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In
the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Mark
R. Leder,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC
91-88
Chief
of Police, East Hartford Police Department, and East Hartford Corporation Counsel,
Respondents September
25, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on June 18, 1991, at which time the complainant and the
respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By
letter of complaint filed on April 4, 1991, the complainant appealed to the
Commission, alleging that his request for certain records had been denied.
3. It
is found that the complainant, by letters dated March 26, 1991, requested from
the respondents copies of the personnel records of four East Hartford police
officers.
4. It
is found that the respondents notified the four police officers of the
complainant's requests, and that the officers objected to disclosure of their
personnel files.
5. It
is found that the respondents did not provide the requested records.
6. It
is found that the complainant represents an individual who has pending civil
litigation against the four police officers and the town of East Hartford.
7. It
is found that the complainant seeks the requested records primarily to seek
evidence to attack the credibility of the four police officers, and generally
to seek evidence that might support his civil litigation.
Docket
#FIC 90-88 Page
2
8. It
is found that the complainant sought to discover the requested records by motion
filed in Superior Court in September 1990.
9. It
is found that the defendants in the civil litigation objected to the discovery
motion.
10. It
is found that the Superior Court ruled on the the defendants' objections,
sustaining those objections with respect to the requested records.
11. Pursuant
to §1-19b(b)(1), G.S., and the principle of comity, the Commission in its
discretion declines to exercise its jurisdiction over the complaint in this
matter.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The
complaint is dismissed.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
September 25, 1991.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission
Docket
#FIC 90-88 Page
2
PURSUANT
TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE
MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION,
OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE
PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
Jose
R. Ramirez, Esq., Assistant Corp. Counsel
Town
of East Hartford
740
Main Street
East
Hartford, CT 06108
Mark
R. Leder, Esq.
Law
Offices of Arnold L. Biezer
429
Capitol Avenue
Hartford,
CT 06106
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission