FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Lamberto Lucarelli,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-219
Paul M. Shapiro, Ralph E. Urban, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General and State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General,
Respondents February 24, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 21, 1992, 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 dated June 2, 1992, the complainant requested from the respondents copies of all records concerning the complainant, or any of his legal proceedings, which have not been previously provided to him, and not already part of the public record in any federal, state superior court, or state administrative proceedings.
3. By letter dated June 10, 1992, respondent Urban informed the complainant that the Office of the Attorney General had no records which were responsive to the complainant's request.
4. By letter of complaint dated July 1, 1992, and filed with the Commission on July 2, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission requesting that the Commission determine:
a. whether the respondents have in their
possession records not previously provided to the complainant, and which are not part of the public record of any legal proceedings in
Docket #FIC 92-219 Page 2
which the complainant is involved; and
b. If such records exist, whether any
exemption claimed by the respondents for nondisclosure is valid.
5. The complainant further requested that the Commission subpoena respondents Shapiro, Urban and all other employees or associates of the respondent Office of the Attorney General deemed necessary for a proper resolution of this case.
6. The complainant also requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.
7. The Commission takes administrative notice of all records and decisions in Docket numbers FIC 90-148, 90-347, 90-390 through 90-398, inclusive, and 91-69.
8. It is found that the respondents are in possession of internal office memoranda and correspondence which are responsive to the complainant's request.
9. Section 1-19(b)(10), G.S., allows nondisclosure of "communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship."
10. It is found that the records described in paragraph 8, above, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(10), G.S.
11. It is concluded that the respondents have not violated any of the complainant's rights under the Freedom of Information Act.
12. The Commission declines to grant the complainant's request for subpoenas or for the imposition of civil penalties.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 24, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-219 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:
Lamberto Lucarelli
21 Howard Street
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
Paul M. Shapiro, Ralph E. Urban, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General and State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General c/o Asst. Atty. Gen. Ralph E. Urban
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission