Page 36 - CLT083120

36 ¦ AUGUST 31, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

the Rules of Professional Conduct. Defendant for purposes of §52-593. As to defendant’s sec-
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of person- ond claim, it is not clearly established that a
al jurisdiction, and the court denied the mo- plaintiff ’s naming of the incorrect party must
tion. The court found that plaintiff failed to be “reasonable.” Further, even if there were
meet its burden of proof and found in favor such a requirement, defendant failed to es-
of defendant. The court found defendant only tablish that plaintiff ’s naming of the incorrect
agreed to provide loan modification services party was unreasonable.
to his client, and did not provide any substan-
tive legal advice or assistance regarding the PUBLIC RECORDS • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
underlying foreclosure or bankruptcy. The
court further noted defendant advised his cli-
ent to get a Connecticut attorney, and that he Public Agency May Lawfully Withhold
could not represent her in any Connecticut Police Officer’s Birth Date in
foreclosure concerns. The court found in favor Responding to FOIA Request
of the defendant.
CASE: Town of Avon v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n
COURT: New Britain J.D., Administrative Appeals Session
PERSONAL INJURY • CIVIL PROCEDURE DOC. NO.: CV19-6056393

Plaintiff Timely Corrected Error After COURT OPINION BY: Cordani
DATE: August 06, 2020 • PAGES: 15
The court sustained in part an appeal from a
Naming Wrong Defendant decision of the Freedom of Information Com-

CASE: Scanzillo v. Duracell U.S. Operations, Inc. mission order, finding that two of the three
COURT: Danbury J.D. at Danbury acts complained of by the Commission did
DOC. NO.: CV19-6032671
COURT OPINION BY: D’Andrea not violate the Freedom of Information Act.
Following a citizen’s complaint, the Commis-
DATE: August 06, 2020 • PAGES: 16 sion issued a decision finding that the Town of
Avon Police Department and Police Chief had
The court denied defendant’s motion for sum- violated the FOIA by (1) temporarily with-
mary judgment, finding that plaintiff ’s com- holding police reports responsive to a FOIA
plaint was timely filed. Plaintiff was allegedly request because the reports concerned “open
injured in a January 10, 2017 slip and fall in investigations,” when the reports merely con-
a parking garage. She timely sued Danbury cerned infractions that the violator had not yet
Hospital, which she believed to be in posses-
sion and control of the parking garage. Upon complied with; (2) demanding that the party
discovering she was mistaken, she withdrew requesting records sign a receipt acknowledg-
her complaint against the hospital on July 1, ing receipt of the documents in order to re-
2019. Three weeks later, on July 22, she filed ceive them; and (3) refusing to provide a po-
suit against defendant. Defendant moved to lice officer’s birth date and watercraft operator
dismiss, contending plaintiff ’s complaint was number on grounds that the release of such
time-barred. Defendant argued that G.S. §52- information was an improper invasion of the
593 did not apply. Under G.S. §52-593, when officer’s privacy. Plaintiffs appealed that deci-
a plaintiff fails to obtain judgment due to fail- sion. The court reversed in part the Commis-
ure to name the right person as defendant, the sion’s order, finding that a public agency does
statute of limitations will not bar the bringing not violate the FOIA by requiring that a party
of a new action so long as service of process requesting documents sign a simple receipt ac-
is made within one year after the termination knowledging receipt of the records before they
of the original action. Here, defendant argued, are provided. The FOIA neither expressly au-
(1) there was no “judgment” in the original ac- thorizes nor prohibits such a policy. Although
tion and (2) plaintiff ’s mistaken naming of the an agency may not adopt policies that inhibit
wrong defendant was not reasonable. The court lawful access to public records, the require-
rejected both of defendant’s claims as without ment that a requester to sign a simple receipt
merit. First, plaintiff failed to obtain a judg- prior to inspection does not unreasonably in-
ment in her first action because she sued the hibit the public’s access to public records. Fur-
wrong defendant. Had she not withdrawn her ther, a public agency may lawfully withhold in-
complaint, it would have been dismissed. She formation that, if released, would result in an
thus failed to obtain a judgment in her favor improper invasion of privacy. Here, the officer

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune