State of Connecticut v. R.L. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS

In the above-referenced matter, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 54-142a(f), the City of Hartford seeks the entire court file for the above referenced action, one wherein the defendant has been acquitted of all charges.   The defendant, through counsel, objects to the disclosure.

This court recognizes that there is a common-law right of access to judicial documents and a constitutional right of access to both judicial proceedings and judicial documents.  United States v. Gotti, 322 F.Sup.2d 230 (E.D.N.Y.2004);  Center for National Security Studies v. Department of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 936 (D.C.Cir.2003).   The right is not absolute.   Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. at 589, 597-98 (1977).

Here the City of Hartford relies upon Connecticut General Statutes 54-142a(f) which provides in relevant part:

a) Whenever in any criminal case, on or after October 1, 1969, the accused, by a final judgment, is found not guilty of the charge or the charge is dismissed, all police and court records and records of any state's attorney pertaining to such charge shall be erased upon the expiration of the time to file a writ of error or take an appeal, if an appeal is not taken, or upon final determination of the appeal sustaining a finding of not guilty or a dismissal, if an appeal is taken.

f) Upon motion properly brought, the court or a judge thereof, if such court is not in session, may order disclosure of such records (1) to a defendant in an action for false arrest arising out of the proceedings so erased ․

In the present case, the City of Hartford is not a defendant in an action brought by the former defendant in the above-referenced matter.   The City is a defendant in a wrongful death action brought by a third party.   As a consequence, the City cannot rely upon the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 54-142a(f), a narrowly defined exception.   See, e.g. Ferreria v. Palladium Realty Partners, 160 Misc.2d 841, 611 N.Y.S.2d 458 (1994);  In re Joseph M., 82 N.Y.S.2d 128, 603 N.Y.S.2d 804, 623 NE.2d 1154 (1993);  New York State Police v. Charles Q., 192 App.Div.2d 142, 600 N.Y.S.2d 513 (1993).

The City of Hartford is not without a remedy.   Federal discovery rules might provide discovery of the documents sought.   See Lehman v. Kornblau, 206 F.R.D. 345 (E.D.N.Y.2001);  See Waterman v. City of New York, F.Sup.2d, No. 96 Civ. 1471(AGS)(RLE), 1998 WL 23219 (S.D.N.Y.1998);  King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 187-88 (E.D.N.Y.1988);  Morrison v. New York City Police Department, 225 A.D.2d 463, 639 N.Y.S.2d 372 (1st Dept.1996).

Based on the record before this court, the City of Hartford's Motion for Production is denied.

Dewey, J.

Dewey, Julia DiCocco, J.