FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Mark R. Leder,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 91-88

 

Chief of Police, East Hartford Police Department, and East Hartford Corporation Counsel,

 

Respondents September 25, 1991

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 18, 1991, at which time the complainant 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 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter of complaint filed on April 4, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his request for certain records had been denied.

 

3. It is found that the complainant, by letters dated March 26, 1991, requested from the respondents copies of the personnel records of four East Hartford police officers.

 

4. It is found that the respondents notified the four police officers of the complainant's requests, and that the officers objected to disclosure of their personnel files.

 

5. It is found that the respondents did not provide the requested records.

 

6. It is found that the complainant represents an individual who has pending civil litigation against the four police officers and the town of East Hartford.

 

7. It is found that the complainant seeks the requested records primarily to seek evidence to attack the credibility of the four police officers, and generally to seek evidence that might support his civil litigation.

 

Docket #FIC 90-88 Page 2

 

8. It is found that the complainant sought to discover the requested records by motion filed in Superior Court in September 1990.

 

9. It is found that the defendants in the civil litigation objected to the discovery motion.

 

10. It is found that the Superior Court ruled on the the defendants' objections, sustaining those objections with respect to the requested records.

 

11. Pursuant to 1-19b(b)(1), G.S., and the principle of comity, the Commission in its discretion declines to exercise its jurisdiction over the complaint in this matter.

 

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 September 25, 1991.

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-88 Page 2

 

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:

Jose R. Ramirez, Esq., Assistant Corp. Counsel

Town of East Hartford

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

Mark R. Leder, Esq.

Law Offices of Arnold L. Biezer

429 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission