Page 37 - CLT083120

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 31, 2020 ¦ 37

whose records were the subject of the FOIA with the commission’s ruling, free of charge,
request objected to the release of her birthdate and to henceforth strictly comply with the
and watercraft operator number. Finding no disclosure requirements of the FOIA.
legitimate need for the public to obtain that
information, the court found the officer’s ob-
jection well taken. Plaintiffs did not violate the U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOIA by withholding that information.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CLASS ACTIONS • GOVERNMENT

COMMISSION Court Held That Petitioners Lacked
Standing to Bring Class Action Suit
After Being Quarantined for Ebola
PUBLIC RECORDS
CASE: Liberian Cmty. Ass’n of Connecticut v. Lamont
COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit
FOIA Authorized Some But Not All DOC. NO.: 17-1558
Redactions of Attorney Invoices COURT OPINION BY: Livingston
DATE: August 14, 2020 • PAGES: 60
CASE: Collins v. Chairman, Connecticut Port Authority
COURT: Freedom of Information Commission In response to the Ebola epidemic in West Afri-
DOC. NO.: FIC 2019-0670 ca, the Connecticut governor declared a public
COURT OPINION BY: Freedom of Information Commission health emergency and authorized the Commis-
DATE: August 12, 2020 • PAGES: 9 sioner of Public Health to quarantine people
who she believed had been exposed to or could
The Freedom of Information Commission
sustained in part a complaint, finding that re- transmit the virus. She ordered 21-day quaran-
spondents improperly redacted certain docu- tines for two Ph.D candidates and six members
ments. Complainant requested copies of all of a family who had recently emigrated from
legal bills and invoices submitted within a Liberia. None of them had been infected with
two-year period by law firms to the Connecti- Ebola. These individuals filed a class action,
cut Port Authority. Respondents provided the alleging their due process rights had been vio-
requested records, with redactions. Complain- lated. The defendants, the Governor and Com-
ant appealed to the commission, challenging missioners of Public Health, moved to dismiss.
the redactions. The commission concluded The district court dismissed the claims for lack
that some of the redactions were appropriate, of standing and on the basis of qualified im-
but others were not. The commission specifi- munity. It also denied the motion for class cer-
cally approved the redaction of (1) detailed tification and the instant appeal followed. The
descriptions of the legal work performed by court affirmed. Plaintiffs first argued that they
the law firms, which disclosures were protect- suffered actual or imminent injuries that cre-
ed by attorney-client privilege; and (2) the law ated standing to seek prospective relief to avert
firms checking account and federal tax iden- allegedly unconstitutional future quarantines.
tification number, both of which constituted They also argued that the law required that any
confidential information not otherwise avail- quarantine imposed be medically necessary and
able to the public. The commission rejected comply with certain procedural safeguards, and
respondents’ claims of confidentiality as to that their class was sufficiently numerous to
the names and addresses, routing numbers, merit certification. The court agreed with the
and SWIFT codes of the law firms’ financial lower court that their injuries were too specula-
institutions, all of which constituted publicly tive to support standing. It held that the appel-
available information. The court also rejected lants failed to plead a sufficient likelihood that
respondents’ claims that certain portions of under Connecticut’s revised policy, any of them
the documents were exempt from disclosure faced a substantial risk of suffering a future
as either real estate appraisals or disclosures injury. It also held that the law surrounding
of strategy or negotiations, finding nothing in quarantines was not so clearly established that
the record to support such claims. The com- a state official would be liable for its actions
mission directed respondents to provide com- taken regarding the quarantines. It stated that
plainant with unredacted copies in accordance the cases the appellants used in their pleadings

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune