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 2010-780, David Cummings v. Executive Director, Superior Court Operations, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch. 

 

 

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 by letter dated December 7, 2010, the complainant made a request to the respondents for a date and time to inspect, and copy or scan the following:

 

a.       All letters, memos, e-mails, notes, pictures, videos, reports, or opinions regarding David Cummings sent to or received from  the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division;

 

b.      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;

 

c.       All correspondence, memos, e-mails, recordings, letters, opinions, tape recordings, videos, or pictures sent to or received from the respondents, Nizankwicz & Miller, any Superior Court employee, clerk, judge, court reporter, or judicial marshall regarding David Cummings;

 

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, complaints, whether they be e-mails, letters, opinions, notes, tape recordings, or videos;

 

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

 

f.       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.

 

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 request described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the complainant was informed on December 23, 2010 that he could contact or go to the Human Resources Management Unit to review the records compiled in response to that portion of his request.  It is found, however, that the complainant did not make arrangements to inspect the records and on January 26, 2011, the respondents mailed the records to him, free of charge.

 

9.      With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2b and 2e, above, it is found that by letter dated December 9, 2010, the complainant was informed, and it is found, that the respondents do not maintain any records responsive to his request.

 

10.  With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2c, above, it is found that by telephone on December 23, 2010, and by a January 26, 2011 letter, the complainant was informed, and it is found, that the respondents did not maintain any records responsive to his request.

 

11.  With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2d, above, it is found that by letter dated December 9, 2010, the complainant was asked to clarify his request because it appeared to be duplicative of his other requests with which the respondents had already complied.

 

12.  It is found that the complainant never responded to the respondents’ December 9, 2010 request for clarification. 

 

13.  With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2f, above, it is found that by letter dated December 13, 2010, the complainant was informed, and it is found, that the respondents did not maintain any records responsive to his request. 

 

14.  It is found that to the extent the complainant reasonably identified the records he was requesting, the respondents compiled and provided all responsive records they maintain.

 

15.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.

 

 

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

 

Robert Coffey, Director, Human Resources Management Unit,

State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and

State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch

c/o Martin R. Libbin, Esq.

Deputy Director

Legal Services

100 Washington Street

P.O. Box 150474

Hartford, CT  06115

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-781/FD/cac/11/16/2011