In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION


John DePino,




against Docket #FIC 87-304


Attorney General of the State of Connecticut,


Respondent February 10, 1988


The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 2, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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:


1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.


2. By letter dated October 2, 1987, the complainant requested the respondent provide him with all the records in the respondent's file about the controversy underlying DePino v. Ungers, which originated in Superior Court in 1985. The complainant included in his request documents dated October 8, 1985, October 22, 1985, March 16, 1987, and April 21, 1987, and anything else important to the matter.


3. The complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated October 13, 1987, and filed with the Commission on October 15, 1987, alleging he received no response to his request.


4. The respondent claims his staff has searched its files and given the complainant all the records it has. The respondent also claims his staff will search again, and, if it discovers any other records, give them to the complainant, and, if it discovers none, sign affidavits saying so.


5. At the hearing, the complainant limited his request to the following items:


a. a square piece of linoleum tile the complainant sent to the respondent's assistant;


Docket #87-304 Page Two


b. the original of a letter from the complainant to the respondent dated October 22, 1985;


c. documentation of an investigation of the Stern Co. that allegedly led the respondent's assistant to mention in a telephone conversation an exact amount of irregular tiles Stern Co. allegedly sold;


d. documentation of inquiries made to the respondent by Governor O'Neill on the complainant's behalf, which inquiries are referred to in a letter dated September 2, 1986, from the governor to the complainant;


e. documentation of the respondent's response to the governor's inquiries; and


f. documentation of the "governor's response" referred to in a handwritten note at the bottom of a memorandum to the respondent from his assistant, dated June 17, 1986.


6. It is found that the respondent has agreed to have his staff diligently search for the items described in paragraphs 5a and b, above, and, if they find them, give them to the complainant.


7. It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with the full investigation report concerning this matter, that no other investigation such as that described in paragraph 2c above took place, and that no investigation records exist other than those already provided to the complainant.


8. It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with copies of all the records described in paragraphs 2d, e and f, 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 hereby dismissed.


Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 10, 1988.



Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission