|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Leo
F. Smith, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-444 |
|
Ivan Ramos, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
February
9, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 8, 1999, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, 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 §1-200(1),
G.S.
2. By letter dated
September 1, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him
with copies of certain records pertaining to the Hartford City Store that was
operated on Main Street in Hartford.
3. By letter dated
September 20, 1999, the respondent declined to provide the requested records
to the complainant, stating that there were two lawsuits pending that
pertained to the Hartford City Store, and that the records would not be
provided during the pendency of those suits.
4. By a complaint dated September 21, 1999, and filed on
September 23, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that
the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by declining to provide
the requested records, and requesting the imposition of a civil penalty in the
amount of $1,000.00.
5. Section 1-210(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 1-212(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 1-213(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 two civil suits involving the Hartford City Store are pending in Superior Court, and the City of Hartford is a party to both actions.
9. It is found that the complainant is not a party to either of the civil suits.
10. The respondent claims no exemption from disclosure other than §1-213(b)(1), G.S.
11. In Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department v. FOIC, 52 Conn. App. 12 (1999), the Appellate Court held that records are not exempt from disclosure under §1-213(b)(1), G.S., by virtue of having been sought through use of the discovery process in civil litigation.
12. The Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal Chief of Police v. FOIC, and that the case has been argued before the Court but not yet decided.
13. It is concluded that the respondent failed to prove that
disclosure of the requested records would limit the right of the litigants,
under the laws of discovery of the state, in the civil actions described at
paragraph 8, above, and that such a disclosure would thereby violate §1-213(b)(1),
G.S.
14. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., when he failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the requested records.
15. It is also found that, given the pendency of Chief of Police v. FOIC before the Supreme Court, the respondent’s violation of §1-200(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., was not without reasonable grounds and therefore no civil penalty is warranted.
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
February 9, 2000.
________________________
Ann B. Gimmartino
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:
Leo F. Smith
1060 Mapleton Avenue
Suffield, CT 06078
Ivan Ramos, Office of
the Corporation Counsel,
City of Hartford,
55o Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
__________________________
Ann B. Gimmartino
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-444FD/mes/02152000