FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was first heard as a contested case on April 3, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The respondents submitted for in camera inspection the memorandum described in paragraph 4 of the findings, below (the “Memorandum”).

 

            The Commission then issued a final decision on December 21, 2006, ordering disclosure of the Memorandum, from which the respondent took an appeal to the Superior Court.  The court then ordered the case remanded to the Commission pursuant to §4-183(h), G.S., for the taking of additional evidence regarding whether the Memorandum was any longer sought by the complainant.

 

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.  By letter of complaint filed January 25, 2006, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for certain public records.

 

3.  It is found that, beginning with a memorandum dated November 9, 2005, the complainant requested “all written documents” pertaining to an incident that occurred among officers of the Middletown Police Department on October 31, 2005. 

4.  It is found that the respondents ultimately provided the requested records, with the exception of a November 23, 2005 memorandum from Middletown City Attorney Trina Solecki to the respondent Pessina (the “Memorandum”).

 

5.  It is found that the complainant requested on December 19, 2005 that the respondents provide him with a copy of the Memorandum.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent Pessina denied the complainant’s request on December 28, 2005, asserting that the Memorandum was a “privileged attorney-client communication.”

 

7.  It is also found that the Memorandum was also sought by the complainant in connection with litigation by the complainant against the respondent in federal district court.

 

8.  It is found that the federal litigation was pending at the time of the April 3, 2006 hearing in this matter.

 

9.  It is found that the federal litigation was settled during the pendency of the respondent’s administrative appeal of the Commission’s December 21, 2006 final decision.

 

10.  It is found that, pursuant to the settlement of the federal litigation, the respondent has provided the complainant with a redacted version of the Memorandum, and the complainant has withdrawn his complaint described in paragraph 2, above.

           

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 14, 2008.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Glenn C. Morron

c/o Craig T. Dickinson, Esq.

Dickinson & Mallow

76 Moorland Avenue

Waterbury, CT 06708

           

J. Edward Brymer, Chief,

Police Department, City of Middletown; and

Phillip Pessina, Deputy Chief,

Police Department, City of Middletown

c/o James M. Sconzo, Esq. and

Michael G. Petrie, Esq.

Jorden Burt LLP

175 Powder Forest Drive

Suite 201

Simsbury, CT 06089-9658

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2006-038FD/paj/5/15/2008