Bridgeport loses FOIA redaction case

New Britain’s superior court ruled against Bridgeport’s attempt to delay an order from the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) to produce public records related to a 2016 arrest and murder. The city was seeking the ability to redact records prior to disclosing them under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), despite not citing any exemptions or evidence to justify redactions.

The request at the center of the case is related to a 2016 murder Deonte Tomlinson was convicted of committing. Tomlinson, who is incarcerated at the Cheshire Correctional Institution, submitted a FOIA request with the city on February 27, 2020, seeking all records related to his arrest and conviction.

Bridgeport acknowledged the request on March 4, 2020. Tomlinson followed up with the city on August 3, 2020, to inquire about the request’s status. On August 12, city officials told Tomlinson that the request was still being processed and at least some records should be available in two to three weeks.

But Bridgeport didn’t provide any records within that timeframe, or for months after. Tomlinson filed an appeal with the FOIC on April 5, 2021. The commission held a hearing on the matter on December 17, 2021. At the hearing, Bridgeport argued the delay in the request was a result of “the voluminous nature of the request and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

But in the commission’s final decision , they noted that Bridgeport did not present any evidence during the hearing that they had searched for the requested records.

“It is further found that, notwithstanding counsel’s statements regarding the respondents’ commitment to provide the requested records, the respondents did not present any evidence that they have taken steps to that end. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the respondents denied the request by failing to provide the complainant with copies of the requested records.” the FOIC’s decision in the matter read.

Bridgeport was ordered to turn over all responsive records to Tomlinson, free of charge, within 30 days of the decision. The commission voted to adopt the final decision during a meeting on March 8, 2023.

During that meeting and prior to the FOIC’s vote to adopt the final decision, Bridgeport’s legal counsel argued that because the decision did not state that documents had to be produced in unredacted form the city was entitled to review and redact responsive documents before turning them over.

But, as the superior court’s ruling dismissing Bridgeport’s appeal from the FOIC decision notes, the city did not at that point specify what documents it needed to redact or a legal basis for what redactions needed to be made according to statutory exemptions to FOIA.

The city filed a motion to stay the FOIC’s order and seek clarification on April 13, 2023. The FOIC denied both motions a week later. On April 26, Bridgeport filed an instant appeal with the superior court.

In its decision dismissing Bridgeport’s appeal, the court notes that the burden to justify exemptions that would warrant redactions to the records falls on Bridgeport. It also notes that “the record demonstrates that Bridgeport presented no evidence of any kind justifying the application of any FOIA exemption.” Further, the city did not state what exemptions it believes applies to any of the responsive documents to the request.

“The commission has no legal obligation to state that its production orders apply to only redacted on unredacted documents, as Bridgeport argues in this appeal. That is particularly the case where the record demonstrates that Bridgeport failed to present any evidence whatsoever in support of any statutory exemption, or even request a specific exemption, during the commission’s hearings on December 17, 2021 or March 8, 2023.” the court concluded.

The post Bridgeport loses FOIA redaction case appeared first on Connecticut Inside Investigator .