The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 17 and October 16, 2015, at which times the complainant and respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).   

     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 §1-200(1), G.S.

     2.  By letter of complaint filed December 18, 2014, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his November 18, 2014 request to inspect certain records.

     3.  It is found that the complainant made a November 18, 2014 request to the respondents to review and inspect records compiled by the respondents in connection with the use of restraints and/or force applied to the complainant by staff at Corrigan Correctional Institution between October 24, 2014 and October 27, 2014.

     4.  It is found that the respondents acknowledged the request on November 24, 2014, indicating that certain records were maintained by the University of Connecticut Medical Center Correctional Managed Care, others would be provided to him, and, initially, that one was exempt from disclosure.  The respondents initially demanded payment for copies of the records, but that demand was ultimately withdrawn, and the complainant withdrew any claim concerning that demand for payment.

     5.  The respondents provided most of the records in their custody, excepting the document for which they claimed an exemption, to the complainant for inspection on August 20, 2015, shortly after the first hearing in this matter, and nine months after the request was made.

     6.  After being ordered at the second, October 16, 2015 hearing in this matter to produce the remaining record for an in camera inspection, the respondents withdrew their claim of exemption for the remaining record, and provided it to the complainant for inspection on October 26, 2015, eleven months after the request had been made.  The order for in camera inspection is therefore withdrawn.

     7.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as follows:

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

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

     10. It is also concluded that none of the records were provided promptly, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

     11. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents violated the promptness provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.

     The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

     1.  Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions of §1-210(a), G.S..

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 18, 2015.

_______________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
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:

Kacey Lewis #165480
Cheshire Correctional Institution
900 Highland Avenue
Cheshire, CT  06410

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction;
and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
c/o James Neil, Esq.
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT  06109

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2014-899/FD/cac/11/18/2015