FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 8, 2011, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 

 

For purposes of hearing, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2010-781, Robert Coffey, Director, Human Resources Management Unit, State of Connecticut, Judicial Department; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Department. 

 

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1.      The respondents are public agencies, with respect to their administrative functions, within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that the complainant made a written request to the respondents on or about December 7, 2010 in which he requested the following:

 

a.       All records, letters, notes, memos, pictures, or videos at the courthouse, related to an October 21, 2010 incident on 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut involving the complainant and Marshalls Perez and Clemson;

 

b.      A date, time, and place to inspect all video, or pictures taken on October 21, 2010 at the courthouse located at 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut which includes all video of any hearing that was taken in Judge Berger’s court room;

 

c.       A date, time and place to inspect all video or pictures taken at or in the courthouse located at 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut which includes all video of any hearing that was taken in Judge Berger’s court room;

 

d.      All communications sent to and/or received from any Superior Court employee, clerk, judge, court reporter, monitor, or State Police officer, regarding David Cummings which includes any records regarding disability accommodations, and complaints, whether they be e-mails, letters, opinions, notes, tape recordings, or videos;

 

e.       All letters, memos, e-mails, notes, pictures, video, or reports sent to and received from anyone in your office regarding David Cummings and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division; and

 

f.       All complaints, or incidents, regarding David Cummings, reported or documented by Judicial Marshalls Perez or Clemson, and any other Judicial Marshall, or any clerk, including all letters, notes, memos, pictures, or videos.   

 

3.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method. 

 

4.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

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 section 1-212. 

 

5.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

 

6.      It is found that the requested records, to the extent they exist, reflect the respondents’ administrative functions.

 

7.      It is found that the requested records, to the extent they exist, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

8.      With respect to the complainant’s records requests described in paragraphs 2 a, b, c, and f, above, it is found that by letter dated December 13, 2010, the respondents advised the complainant, and it is found, that no video recordings existed and that no record related to the October 21, 2010 incident existed. 

 

9.      With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2d, above, it is found that the respondents do not maintain nor is the respondent executive director the custodian of any records that would be responsive to that request.

 

10.  With respect to the records requested in paragraph 2e, above, it is found that, by letter dated December 9, 2010, the respondents acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request and informed him that the respondents maintain no other record responsive to his request than a post-it note of a request for a telephone number.

 

11.  It is found that the respondents maintain no substantive records that are responsive to the records request described in paragraph 2e, above.

 

12.  It is found, however, that subsequent to the complainant’s request, the respondents drafted an incident report of the October 21, 2010 incident and provided a copy to the complainant. 

 

13.  It is found that the respondents also invited the complainant to come and inspect the original of the incident report which he attempted to do, but not until a month later.  It is found that when he presented himself at the respondents’ office, he expected and asked to inspect all the records responsive to his request, which lead to a great deal of confusion.  It is found that in the efforts to resolve the confusion, the complainant was sent from one office to another and he claimed at the hearing in this matter that he was given “the run around” since he never received access to inspect all the records he requested.

 

14.  It is found, however, that the only responsive record to the complainant’s December 7, 2010 request that the respondents maintain is the incident report described in paragraph 12, above, which was not in existence at the time of the request.  It is further found that, after a month, it is not unreasonable that the respondents would not have realized immediately that the confusion lay in the complainant’s misguided expectation that records other than the incident report had been compiled and prepared for his inspection.

 

15.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., with respect to the complainant’s December 7, 2010, records request.

 

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 November 16, 2011.

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

David Cummings

P.O. Box 84

Ellington, CT  06029

 

Executive Director, Superior Court Operations,

State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and

State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch

c/o Martin R. Libbin, Esq.

Deputy Director

Legal Services

100 Washington Street

Hartford, CT  06106

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-780/FD/cac/11/16/2011