The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on September 7 and October 14, 2011, at which times the complainant and the respondents appeared. 

At the commencement of the September 7, 2011 hearing, the respondents informed the hearing officer that they were not contesting that the complainant was entitled to the requested records.  The respondents further stated that they were in the process of responding to the request.  Specifically, the respondents had recently provided the complainant with a package of responsive records.  At the time of the September 7, 2011 contested case hearing, the complainant had not yet had an opportunity to review the package.  The respondents further informed the hearing officer that, with regard to electronic records, they were working with their information technology (“IT”) professionals to gather such records.  The complainant indicated that he also wanted to receive a copy of any employment file pertaining to him, especially any such file maintained in the chief of police’s office.  In response, the respondents indicated they were prepared to provide all non-exempt records to the complainant.  Upon the joint request of the parties, the contested case hearing was continued.

On October 14, 2011, the complainant and the respondents appeared for a continued contested case hearing.  At the commencement of the hearing, the complainant indicated that the respondents were providing him with 1,200 responsive records that day, along with an affidavit from the respondents’ IT Director.  The complainant requested that the hearing officer continue the hearing one more time, to allow him to review the recently provided records and determine whether he believed there were additional responsive records.  The respondents concurred in the request to continue the hearing.  The parties’ request to continue the hearing was granted and the contested case hearing was rescheduled to December 15, 2011.  Prior to the close of the October 14, 2011 hearing, the complainant was instructed to inform the hearing officer prior to December 15, 2011 whether the second continued hearing would need to go forward as scheduled.

By letter dated December 9, 2011, the complainant informed the hearing officer that the respondents had supplied him with the requested records to his satisfaction, and that accordingly he was withdrawing the complaint.  The Commission takes administrative notice of such letter. 
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. Based on the withdrawal of the complaint, the case is hereby dismissed.

2. The Commission commends the parties on having reached a non-litigated settlement in this matter. 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 25, 2012.

__________________________
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:

James Duda
c/o Daniel Hunsberger, Esq.
Maurer & Associates
871 Ethan Allen Highway #202
Ridgefield, CT  06877

Shawn Boyne, Chief, Police Department, Town of New Milford;
Police Department, Town of New Milford; and
Pat Murphy, Mayor, Town of New Milford
c/o D. Randall DiBella, Esq.
Cramer & Anderson, LLP
51 Main Street
New Milford, CT  06776

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission