FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Stephen G. King,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-358
New Britain Office of the Corporation Counsel,
Respondent August 9, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 16, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is found that on August 31, 1994, the complainant filed a Notice of Injury, ("claim"), with the City of New Britain, ("city") claiming money damages for certain damage to his property which allegedly occurred as a result of a water meter installed by the New Britain Water Department, ("water department") in July 1994.
3. It is found that upon receipt of the claim, the respondent, on September 6, 1994 sent a memorandum to the water department seeking information concerning the alleged incident which gave rise to the claim, in order to assist in "properly defending" the claim.
4. It is found that at an October 6, 1994 meeting, the city's Committee on Claims granted the complainant "leave to withdraw his claim for property damage", thereby denying his request for money damages.
5. It is found that on October 7, 1994, the complainant requested from the respondent a copy of the Board of Water Commissioners "response" to his claim.
6. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request by letter dated October 7, 1994, claiming that the "response" is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Docket FIC# 94-358 Page 2
7. Having been denied access to the requested "response", the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated October 7, 1994 and filed with the Commission on October 11, 1994.
8. At the hearing into this matter, the respondent claimed that the "response" is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4) and 1-19(b)(10), G.S.
9. Following the hearing into this matter, the document at issue was submitted to the Commission for an in camera inspection.
10. It is concluded that the requested "response" record is a public record within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.
11. Section 1-19(b)(10), G.S., states in pertinent part:
Nothing in sections 1-15, 1-18a, 1-19 to 1-19b, inclusive, and 1-21 to 1-21k, inclusive, shall be construed to require disclosure of (10) ...communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.
12. It is found that the "response" is a communication between the water department as client and the respondent as attorney.
13. It is found that the "response" was elicited from the water department by the respondent for the purpose of giving legal advice and relates directly to the substance of the legal representation.
14. It is found that the "response" was provided to the respondent in confidence.
15. It is concluded that the "response" is exempt from disclosure in accordance with 1-19(b)(10), G.S., as a communication protected by the attorney-client privilege.
16. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act when it failed to disclose the "response."
17. In light of the conclusion reached in paragraph 15, above, it is not necessary to address the respondent's further claim of exemption.
Docket FIC# 94-358 Page 3
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 August 9, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-358 Page 4
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:
Mr. Stephen G. King
94 Connecticut Avenue
New Britain, CT 06051
New Britain Office of the Corporation Counsel
c/o Daniel L. Healy, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
27 West Main Street
New Britain, CT 06051
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission