Page 42 - CLT020121

42 ¦ FEBRUARY 1, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

PUBLIC RECORDS • PRIVACY The court granted in part and denied in part
a motion to quash a subpoena. In 2015 plain-
Police Body Cam Video of Investigative tiffs, the Thomas L. Pearson and The Pearson
Interview Was Exempt from FOIA Family Members Foundation, granted $100
Disclosure million to defendant University of Chicago
to establish a center for the study and practice
of global conflicts resolution. Disputes arose.
CASE: In the Matter of Complaint by Camara Plaintiffs filed an action in Oklahoma, alleging
COURT: Freedom of Information Commission that defendant failed to carry out numerous du-
DOC. NO.: FIC 2020-0070 ties under the parties’ grant agreement and that
COURT OPINION BY: Freedom of Information Commission defendant misrepresented or omitted key facts
DATE: January 13, 2021 • PAGES: 4
The state freedom of information commission dis- relating to the Institute and the center’s budget
missed a complaint after a town police department during grant negotiations. Defendant counter-
denied a FOIA request for a copy of a police body claimed. Extensive discovery followed. Non-
camera video recorded during a police interview. party George Ledwith was a friend and former
Katherine Camara directed a request to the Water- colleague of a Pearson family member. Ledwith
town police department for a copy of a police body was familiar with the terms of the family’s gift
camera video of an investigative interview. The de- to defendant, having participated extensively
partment denied the request, on the ground that in the family’s work in conflict studies. Prior to
the requested video was exempt from disclosure the grant agreement, he was asked to, and pro-
because it contained uncorroborated allegations vided, comments and advice on the agreement’s
subject to destruction pursuant to G.S. §1-216. An provisions. As the parties’ relationship became
FOI commission hearing officer reviewed the video, increasingly strained, he counseled plaintiffs re-
in camera, and determined that it was exempt from garding defendant’s finances and other related
disclosure. The officer explained that the video de- issues. Defendant subpoenaed documents from
picted a conversation between a police lieutenant Ledwith, which he provided. A little more than a
and a female as part of the police department’s in- year later, defendant issued a second subpoena,
vestigation into the validity of some questionable requesting further documents and requesting
documents that came to the police department’s attendance at a remotely-conducted deposition.
attention. The video was a record of a law enforce- Ledwith moved to quash. The court granted
ment agency, and it was not otherwise available to the motion to the extent of ordering certain ac-
the public. Further, the video was made in connec- commodations for Ledwith’s health during his
tion with the detection or investigation of the crime deposition, but denied it in other respects. Led-
of making a false statement or the crime of criminal with’s documents and testimony were relevant.
impersonation. Finally, the video contained uncor- The scope of relevance assumed in his motion
roborated allegations subject to destruction pursu- was too narrow. Further, his motion ignored
ant to §1-216, G.S. Therefore, the video was exempt the fact that defendant raised several affirma-
from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(H) G.S. tive defenses. The court was not persuaded that
Accordingly, there was no violation of the FOI Act. Ledwith had no role with respect to how plain-
The officer dismissed the complaint. tiffs engaged with defendant, or that he was

U.S. DISTRICT COURT not even a passive witness to the interactions
of the parties. In particular, he may have had
information pertinent to the family’s bad faith
allegations, such that he would lack informa-
CIVIL PROCEDURE • DISCOVERY • EVIDENCE tion related to any of the claims and defenses
in suit. Next, the court was not persuaded that
Ledwith’s documents and testimony was dupli-
Third Party Was Subject to Subpoena cative. He had no way of knowing what docu-
for Documents and Deposition ments defendant already had, and his conten-
tion that his testimony would be duplicative was
CASE: Thomas L. Pearson & The Pearson Family Members wholly conclusory. Finally, regarding Ledwith’s
Found. v. Univ. of Chicago health, the court was not willing to entirely ex-
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut cuse him from being deposed. The court did,
DOC. NO.: 3:20-mc-00092 however, establish some time limits, including
COURT OPINION BY: Haight
DATE: January 20, 2021 • PAGES: 18 necessary breaks.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune