NO. CV 08 4016692S

COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF CORRECTION

V.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION AND RASHAD EL BADRAWI



NO. CV 09 4020945S

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, COMM.
CT DEPT OF CORRECTION

V.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION AND RASHAD EL BADRAWI


:

:

:


:



:


:

:


:
SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

NEW BRITAIN


January 11, 2010



SUPERIOR COURT


JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

NEW BRITAIN


January 11, 2010

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On November 17, 2009, the court issued an opinion that dismissed in part and sustained in part administrative appeals by the department of correction and the United States of America from a final decision of the freedom of information commission (FOIC)1 The court specifically ordered the United States to submit to the court in camera a redaction of the document that formed the basis of the FOIC proceeding.

On January 8, 2010, the United States complied with this order and lodged with the court the redacted document. The court has reviewed the document in camera against the unredacted original document and the document filed with the court with the redactions of U.S. District Judge Janet Hall. The court has also reviewed the document by referring to a portion of the original record before the FOIC, the 2000 NCIC Operations Manual, Return of Record, respondent's Exhibit B, pages 48 and following.

The court concludes that the redactions of the United States are appropriate. Therefore, based on the November 17, 2009 opinion, the court orders the document disclosed as redacted by the United States. For the next twenty days, the document shall remain unavailable to public inspection, except that counsel for any party may inspect the document in the office of the New Britain Superior Court. On the taking of an appeal by any party, the court will entertain a motion to stay pending appeal pursuant to Practice Book 61-12.

The appeal is dismissed in part and sustained in part.







Henry S. Cohn, Judge






1
See Court's ruling on motion to reargue, dated December 7, 2009: "The court concluded in its opinion of November 17, 2009, that the document should be produced and that the exemptions to the entire document as claimed by the plaintiffs, United States and department of correction, do not apply. At the same time, the court ordered that since this was to become a public document, that the plaintiff United States have the opportunity to suggest to the court a minimal redaction of the document."