Page 27 - CLT062121

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 21, 2021 ■ 27
court granted the motion on that ground due to visitation with the children. Therefore, the
plaintiffs’ alleged failure to demonstrate their court affirmed the trial court’s termination of
compliance with the statutory demand notice respondent’s parental rights.
requirements. Plaintiffs appealed and the court
reversed. Plaintiffs claimed that the trial court TRADE SECRETS • GOVERNMENT
deprived them of due process by dismissing their
action on a basis that the court raised sua sponte Denial of Plaintiffs’ Appeal Affirmed in
without giving them notice or an opportunity
to be heard. The court agreed. It held that any Lawsuit Seeking Information Deemed
alleged failure by plaintiffs to satisfy the writ- to be a Trade Secret
ten demand notice requirements did not deprive
the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter, but CASE: Allco Renewable Energy Ltd. v. Freedom of Info.
rather impacted the court’s authority to grant the Comm’n
relief plaintiffs sought. Furthermore, due pro- COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
cess required defendant to have raised in its mo- DOC. NO.: AC 42992
tion to dismiss the issue of plaintiffs’ compliance COURT OPINION BY: Elgo
DATE: June 08, 2021 • PAGES: 21
with the statutory demand notice requirements. Plaintiffs are a solar development company. They
The court rejected defendant’s argument that the requested certain records from defendant De-
dismissal of plaintiffs’ action could be affirmed partment of Energy and Environmental Protec-
on the alternative ground that they were not ag- tion relating to its request for proposals issued to
grieved because they did not suffer any harm and solicit offers from developers for large-scale clean
therefore did not have standing.
energy contracts. The RFP indicated that each
bidder was to submit a public version of its pro-
FAMILY LAW posal, with any confidential business information
redacted, as well as an unredacted version of the
Termination of Respondent’s Parental proposal that identified all confidential and pro-
Rights Affirmed prietary information. The RFP informed bidders
that the Department would disclose certain infor-
CASE: In Re Sequoia G. mation in its final determination but that it would
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court take reasonable steps to protect confidential in-
DOC. NO.: AC 44346 formation. The Department retained indepen-
COURT OPINION BY: DiPentima dent consultants to evaluate the costs and ben-
DATE: June 08, 2021 • PAGES: 11 efits of the proposals submitted using a market
The trial court terminated respondent’s paren- simulation model. The result of the analysis was

tal rights with respect to her three children. an answer key that compiled the data submitted
The family had an extensive history with the by the bidders, including confidential informa-
Department of Children and Families and ul- tion. The Department denied plaintiffs’ request
timately the children were committed to the to release the answer key, stating it was a trade
custody of petitioner, the Commissioner of secret that was exempt from disclosure under the
Children and Families. Respondent appealed Freedom of Information Act. Plaintiffs appealed
the judgment of the trial court, arguing that to defendant, which denied the appeal. Plaintiffs
the court erroneously found that it was in the appealed to the trial court, which affirmed de-
children’s best interest. The court affirmed. fendant’s decision, and plaintiffs appealed to the
The court held there was sufficient evidence to court. The court affirmed. The court held that
support the trial court’s judgment. It stated the lower court properly determined that defen-
that the trial court did not err in consider- dant’s conclusion that the answer key met the
ing the bond between the children and their trade secret criteria in the Freedom of Informa-
foster parents; even though the lower court tion Act. The Department engaged in trade by
did not specifically discuss the children’s feel- coordinating the RFP and using the answer key
ings towards respondent, the court reasoned to analyze the proposals, as the process required
that it would not have made sense for the trial making a significant investment within a highly
court to disregard that evidence. The court competitive industry for the benefit of ratepay-
also found that respondent had not complied ers across the state. The court also found that
with her obligations in connection with court the lower court properly held that defendant’s
orders, including her obligation regarding conclusion that the bidders and the department
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune