FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Daniel P. Jones and The Hartford |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-164 |
|
|
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December 13, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 16, 2000, at which time the complainants 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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that, by letter dated December 10, 1999, the complainants requested that the respondents provide them with access to, or copies of, a number of records, including all records related to the removal of Attorney Anne Rapkin from the Canterbury transfer station case (hereinafter “the Rapkin records”).
3. It is found that, while the respondents provided access to, or copies of, other requested records, they denied the complainants’ request with respect to the Rapkin records, by letter dated March 15, 2000.
4. By letter dated March 31, 2000, and filed with the Commission on April 3, 2000, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying them access to or copies of the Rapkin records.
5. It is found that the Rapkin records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
6. Section 1-210(a),
G.S., provides in relevant part:
“[e]xcept 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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212….”
7. The respondents submitted copies of the Rapkin records to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which records have been identified as in-camera document #s 2000-164-1 through 2000-164-7, inclusive.
8. The respondents contend that §1-210(b)(4), G.S., exempts the Rapkin records from mandatory disclosure.
9. Section 1-210(b)(4), G.S., provides that nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of “records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled....”
10. It is found that the Rapkin records relate to the respondents’ involvement as a party in the Canterbury transfer case, which resulted in a final decision of the respondents, which decision is currently on appeal. It is concluded that the Rapkin records pertain to pending litigation within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S.
11. Upon careful review of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 7, above, it is concluded that such records pertain to strategy with respect to pending litigation to within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S.
12. It is therefore concluded that such records are exempt from mandatory disclosure until the litigation described in paragraph 10, above, has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.
13. The respondents also contend that §1-210(b)(10), G.S., provides a basis to withhold the following in-camera document #s 2000-164-1, 2000-164-2, 2000-164-6, and 2000-164-7.
14. Section 1-210(b)(10), G.S., in relevant part, permits the nondisclosure of “…communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.”
15. The exemption for attorney-client privileged communications contained in §1-210(b)(10), G.S., is limited to the following circumstances in accordance with established Connecticut law:
“Where legal advice of any kind is sought from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, the communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by the client, are at his instance permanently protected from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, except the protection may be waived.”
Lafaive v. DiLoreto, 2 Conn. App. 58, 65 cert. denied, 194 Conn. 801 (1984).
16. The attorney-client privilege protects communications between client and attorney, when made in confidence for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice. Ullmann v. State, 230 Conn. 698, 711 (1994). It is strictly construed because it “tends to prevent a full disclosure of the truth….” Id. at 710.
17. Upon careful review of the in-camera documents described in paragraph 13, above, it is concluded that they consist of confidential communications within the meaning of the attorney-client privilege exemption set forth in §1-210(b)(10), G.S. Consequently, it is further concluded that such documents are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-210(b)(10), G.S.
18. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to provide the Rapkin records to the complainants, as alleged in the complaint.
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 December 13, 2000.
_________________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
Daniel P. Jones and the
Hartford Courant
285 Broad Street
Hartford, CT 06115
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Environmental Protection,
Communications Division; and State of
Connecticut, Department of Environmental
Protection
c/o Sharon A. Scully, Esq.
Assistant
Attorney General
55
Elm St., PO Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
___________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission