FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Susan M. Stone,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-51
Public
Information/Public Advocacy Office of the City and Town of New Haven,
Respondent April 9, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on March 19, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared 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. On
or about June 1, 1984 the City of New Haven filed suit against Camp, Dresser
& McKee, Inc., a consulting engineering firm, in connection with the
construction of the "East Shore wastewater treatment plant." On or about July 4, 1984 the City filed suit
against Zimpro, Inc. in connection with the same matter.
3. By
letter dated February 10, 1986 the complainant made a request of the respondent
for copies of all invoices from any attorney or law firm, including the firm of
Beveridge and Diamond, retained or consulted by the City of New Haven in
conjunction with any legal proceeding connected with the construction of the
"East Shore sewage treatment plant."
The complainant stated that any information other than the name of the
attorney or law firm submitting the invoice and the total amount of the invoice
could be deleted.
4.
By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on February 28, 1986 the complainant
appealed the failure of the respondent to respond to her February 10, 1986
request.
Docket #FIC
86-51 Page Two
5. At
hearing, the parties asked that the Commission take administrative notice of
the record created in FIC #85-115, Randall Reeves v. Office of the Corporation
Counsel of the City and Town of New Haven and the City and Town of New
Haven. FIC #85-115 involved the same
records and the same respondent as are involved in this matter.
6. At
the hearing in FIC #85-115 the respondent offered the records in question for
examination in camera, which offer was declined by the Commission.
7. The
respondent claims that disclosure of information other than the names of
counsel is exempted from disclosure by 1-19(b)(4), G.S., on the ground
that knowledge of the cost of litigation to an opposing party would be an
important negotiating tool. The
respondent cites as support for this claim the fact that the complainant is
employed by a law firm which represents Zimpro, Inc. and claims that the
absence of a reciprocal obligation would give an impermissible advantage to
opposing parties, including Zimpro.
8. It
is found that an invoice reflecting nothing more than the identity of counsel
and the total amount of each invoice is not a record pertaining to strategy and
negotiations within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
9. The
respondent also claims that a determination by the Commission that the
requested records are not potentially beneficial to Zimpro could be used to
resist discovery attempts by the City in the context of litigation.
10. It
is found that the claimed, speculative, advantage to Zimpro with respect to
defending discovery attempts does not permit the respondent to refuse to
disclose otherwise non-exempt records.
11. The
respondent also claims that an exemption for an attorney's
"work-product" has been read into the federal Freedom of Information
Act, 5 USC 552(b)(5), that the requested records are in the nature of an
attorney's "work-product," and that a similar exemption should be
read into Connecticut's Act.
12. The
respondent failed to prove its claim that the submission of a bill to a client,
which bill would reveal only the name of the attorney and the amount, is an
effort which could be considered "work-product" within the meaning of
5 USC 552(b)(5) or that such an exemption should be read into
Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act.
Docket #FIC
86-51 Page Three
13. The
respondent failed to prove that the requested records are exempted from
disclosure by any provision of the Freedom of Information Act, other state
statute or federal law.
14. It
is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.,
when it denied the complainant's request for invoices for legal services
pertaining to the East Shore wastewater treatment plant.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of invoices for
services rendered by the law firm of Beveridge and Diamond and by any other law
firm or attorney retained for the purpose of litigating claims pertaining to
the East Shore wastewater treatment plant.
2. The
respondent may, prior to releasing such records, delete or mask information
other than the name of the attorney or law firm submitting the invoice and the
total amount of the invoice.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 9, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission