210 Conn.App. 225
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- In Nov. 2018 Godoy submitted FOIA requests for records relating to 11 Columbus Circle, 3 Columbus Circle, and Lieutenant Kelly Walsh’s personnel file; some matters were open investigations and unavailable initially.
- On Jan. 17, 2019 Godoy inspected a redacted copy of Walsh’s file and signed an acknowledgment; on Mar. 4, 2019 he refused to sign an acknowledgment to receive copies of the 11 Columbus Circle records and the department refused to release copies.
- Godoy filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC); the hearing officer found no statutory basis to require a requester to sign an acknowledgment as a condition to inspecting or receiving copies and concluded the plaintiffs violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
- The FOIC’s final order prohibited requiring requesters to sign a form as a condition precedent to receipt of public records (the decision focused on copies).
- The town plaintiffs appealed to Superior Court; the court affirmed the FOIC as to release of copies but reversed insofar as the FOIC’s order was read to prohibit requiring signatures for inspection of original records.
- The appellate court concluded the FOIC never addressed originals (only copies), treated the trial court’s statements about originals as dicta, held Godoy was not aggrieved by the judgment, and dismissed his appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring a requester to sign an acknowledgment as a condition to receiving copies of public records violates FOIA | Godoy: signatures impermissibly condition release and curtailed FOIA rights | Plaintiffs: receipt-signing is a legitimate administrative practice to record what was provided | FOIC and trial court: requiring signature for copies is improper; trial court affirmed FOIC as to copies |
| Whether requiring a requester to sign an acknowledgment as a condition to inspecting original public records is prohibited | Godoy: court’s contrary statement limits his right to unconditional access to public records | Plaintiffs: protecting originals may justify procedural requirements; issue not presented below | Appellate court: issue was not before FOIC; trial court’s holding about originals is dicta and not binding |
| Whether Godoy is aggrieved (has appellate standing) by the Superior Court judgment | Godoy: court’s dicta on originals diminished his FOIA rights and gives him standing to appeal | FOIC/plaintiffs: only copies were at issue; speculative future harms do not establish aggrievement | Court: Godoy sought only copies; he is not aggrieved by dicta on originals; appeal dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiffs’ claim that they may require signatures should be considered on appeal | Plaintiffs: trial court should be reversed to allow signatures as condition for inspection or receipt | FOIC: plaintiffs did not timely cross-appeal the favorable portion; issue not preserved | Court: declined to address plaintiffs’ claim because they did not file a cross-appeal challenging the affirmed portion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Allison G., 276 Conn. 146 (Conn. 2005) (aggrievement is required for appealability)
- Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc., 294 Conn. 206 (Conn. 2009) (aggrievement may be established by a possibility of legally protected interest being harmed)
- Laurel Beach Assn. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 66 Conn. App. 640 (Conn. App. 2001) (statements on nonessential issues are dicta and may be relitigated)
- Dortenzio v. Freedom of Information Commission, 42 Conn. App. 402 (Conn. App. 1996) (review of FOIC decisions is limited to issues raised in administrative record)
- In re Ava W., 336 Conn. 545 (Conn. 2020) (describing the twofold test for classical aggrievement)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 311 Conn. 649 (Conn. 2014) (appellee’s claims attacking judgment must be raised by cross-appeal)