FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Patricia Tisdall,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1997-236
City of Hartford,
Respondent January
28, 1998
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 5, 1997, at
which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, and presented
testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The caption of the case has
been amended to reflect the dismissal of the complainant as to the respondent
Deputy Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford.
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. By letter dated July 23, 1997, the
complainant requested that the respondent provide her with copies of “all
maintenance records for the last 5 years regarding tree limbs on or extending
from 8 Westland Street, Hartford, Connecticut” (the “requested records”).
3. By two letters dated July 29, 1997, the
respondent declined to provide the requested records to the complainant,
stating that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19b(b)(1),
G.S.
4. By a notice of appeal dated July 30, 1997,
and filed on July 31, 1997, the complainant appealed to the Commission
(sometimes herein “FOIC”), alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of
Information Act by declining to provide the requested records in the letters
dated July 29, 1997.
5. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in pertinent
part that:
Except as otherwise
provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on
file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law
or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall
have the right…to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the
provisions of section 1-15.
6. Section 1-15(a), G.S., in turn, provides in
pertinent part that:
(a)ny
person applying in writing shall receive, promptly,
upon
request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.
7. Section 1-19b(b)(1), G.S., provides in
pertinent part that:
Nothing
in [the FOI Act] shall be deemed in any manner
to…limit
the rights of litigants, including parties to
administrative
proceedings, under the laws of discovery
of
this state….
8. It is found that civil litigation is pending
in Superior Court against both the respondent and the client of the
complainant, based upon an allegation that personal injury resulted when a tree
limb fell on a sidewalk. While a motion to strike has been granted in favor of
the respondent, who is a defendant in such pending litigation, a notice of
appeal concerning this ruling has also been filed by the plaintiff in such
litigation.
9. The Commission takes administrative notice
of the decision in Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department v. Freedom of
Information Commission, et al., No. CV96-0561310, Superior Court, Judicial
District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, July 30, 1997, which decision
states the law controlling the present contested case. The court cites with
approval another trial court opinion to the effect “that disclosure in a
judicial proceeding is separate and independent from the action of the FOIC”, supra,
p. 6, and finds a “legislative desire not to allow the discovery process in
judicial proceedings to restrict access to public records”, supra, p. 7.
The appeal from an FOIC order to disclose documents relating to an internal
affairs investigation was dismissed.
10. It is concluded herein that the respondent
has failed to prove that disclosure of the requested records would limit any
specific right of the litigants, under the laws of discovery of the state, in
the civil action described at paragraph 8, above, and that such a disclosure
would thereby violate §1-19b(b)(1),
G.S.
11. It is therefore concluded that the
respondent violated §§1-19(a)
and 1-15(a), G.S., when it failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the
requested records.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the
complainant with a copy of the requested records.
Approved by Order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 28,
1998.
_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Patricia Tisdall
Law Offices of Gerald F. Devokaitis
21 Oak Street, Suite 306
Hartford, CT 06106
City of Hartford
c/o Ivan A. Ramos
Special Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-236/FD/tcg/01281998