FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 20, 2005, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed October 4, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his August 30 and September 20, 2005 requests for public records.

 

3.   It is found that the complainant, by letter dated March 7, 2005, asked the respondent to produce:

 

…all unpublished written orders and decisions, issued since August, 2002 by Connecticut State Courts or the Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut, ruling on the State’s or a state employee’s claim of common law sovereign immunity or statutory immunity pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-165.  The requested records include, but are not limited to, orders and decisions citing Martin v. Brady, 261 Conn. 327 (2002); Miller v. Egan, 265 Conn. 301 (2003); Prigge v. Ragaglia, 265 Conn. 338 (2003); and/or Hutman v. Blumenthal, 67 Conn. App. 613 (2002).  You do not need to produce decisions that have been published and/or are available on Lexis.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent, by letter dated March 24, 2005, responded that it did not keep a log or file of such decisions, and that it did not believe it had an obligation under the FOI Act to undertake research in response to a request.  Nonetheless, the respondent, “by attempting to tap the recollections of various departments,” provided four decisions “that your own research might not have come across.”  The respondent also noted its belief that most of the requested decisions, including unpublished decisions, were available on Lexis.

 

            5.  It is found that the complainant, by letters dated July 29 and August 30, 2005, requested:

 

(1) all other orders and decisions in your possession, custody or control concerning the application of State sovereign or statutory immunities in cases asserting federal constitutional claims and/or claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and (2) the case names and docket numbers of all other cases in which members of your Office have asserted State law sovereign or statutory immunity in response to Federal constitutional claims and/or claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent, by letter dated September 20, 2005, noted that the July 29 and August 30, 2005 requests were similar to the March 7, 2005 request, again asserted that it did not believe it had an obligation under the FOI Act to perform research, but again “by attempting to tap the recollections of various departments in this agency,” provided “a handful of decisions that your own research might not have come across.”  The decisions provided did not duplicate the decisions provided by the respondent to the complainant on March 24, 2005.

 

7.  It is found that the complainant, by letter dated September 20, 2005 to the respondent, reiterated his July 29, 2005 request.

 

8.  It is found that the respondent, by letter dated September 29, 2005, reiterated its belief that the requested decisions were available on Lexis and Westlaw, that the respondent did not keep an official file or log of all decisions by subject matter, and its belief that it did not have an obligation under the FOI Act to undertake research.  The respondent also provided an additional eight decisions that it had identified as responsive to the request.

 

9.  It is found that the respondent subsequently also coordinated a search of all its departments, going back five years, for cases that might be responsive to the complainant’s request.  The respondent collected a pile of cases approximately two inches thick, but the respondent did not additionally review the cases to determine whether they were specifically responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

10.   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.

 

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

 

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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

 

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

 

            13.  It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

            14.  The respondent contends that all of the complainant’s requests required legal research and, although the respondent conducted some research as a courtesy to the complainant, it has no obligation under the FOI Act to conduct further legal research, citing Steven Edelman v. Department of Public Safety et al., docket #FIC 1998-197.      

            15.  In Edelman, above, the Commission concluded that a request for all opinions, interpretations, rulings, memoranda, and similar records pertaining to the construction, meaning or effect of certain state statutes required the respondent to conduct research not required by the FOI Act.

 

            16.  The complainant contends, however, that his request does not require legal research or interpretation of cases, but merely requires the production of documents matching two or three criteria, citing Wildin v. Freedom of Information Commission, 56 Conn. App. 683 (2000).

           

            17.  It is found, however, that the request in this case is essentially the same kind of request at issue in Edelman, above, where the criteria to be “matched” are particular statutes or legal issues.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that searching for cases that “match” particular statutes or legal issues is a starting point for contemporary electronic legal research.  Such legal research requires not merely a mechanical matching of criteria, but the exercise of professional analysis and discretion to determine whether the cases preliminarily located satisfy the researcher’s goals.  In contrast, the request in Wildin, above, was simply for correspondence to and from named individuals.  In Wildin, the Appellate Court concluded that “no analysis [was] required to search for the records. More importantly, the plaintiff's request did not require the defendants to exercise discretion as to whether the records fell within the plaintiff's request.”  Wildin, above, at 686-87. 

 

18.  The complainant additionally contends that the records provided to him by the respondent constituted an overbroad response to his request.

 

19.  It is concluded, however, that winnowing the cases already provided to the complainant in order to better satisfy his request clearly requires the exercise of analysis and discretion that is the hallmark of legal research.

 

20.  It is therefore concluded that the complainant’s request required the respondent to conduct legal research, which the respondent performed for him as a courtesy, and that the respondent’s decision not to conduct further research did not violate the FOI Act.

 

           

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 27, 2006.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Antonio Ponvert III

Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder PC

PO Box 1661

Bridgeport, CT 06601

 

State of Connecticut,

Office of the Attorney General

c/o Susan Quinn Cobb, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

PO Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-475FD/paj/9/29/2006