East Haven’s attorney Michael Luzzi must pay $5,000 for the town’s handling of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that saw them wait over 250 days before searching for responsive records and defy the orders of the hearing officer who handled the complaint multiple times. The $5,000 fine is the maximum penalty the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) can assess, and is double what was proposed by a hearing officer. It is the largest fine the commission has ever assessed.

In this case, Nina Pirrotti, a civil rights and employment litigation attorney, requested a number of documents related to the town’s fire department on May 2, 2024. Pirrotti represented East Haven’s first female firefighter in a federal civil action claiming discrimination. East Haven used this to argue the FOIC should dismiss the complaint.

Pirrotti’s request included documents showing whether the East Haven Fire Department’s assistant chief position was governed by the Civil Service Commission between 2017 and 2021, whether the position was removed from the Civil Service Commission’s oversight prior to the 2021 assistant chief promotional exam, amendments to civil services rules, correspondence between the Civil Service Commission and other town officials, and any town charter provisions about the assistant chief position.

On May 7, Luzzi, East Haven’s town attorney, acknowledged the complaint. On May 13, 2024, Pirrotti asked for an update on the status of her request from Luzzi and Andrea Liquori, the chief examiner of the Civil Service Commission. Liquori directed Pirretti to “go through Attorney Luzzi” for the complaint.

On May 20, Luzzi asked Luzzi for a status update on the request. On May 28, she filed a complaint with the FOIC.

On August 6, 2024, the commission issued a notice that an in-person hearing for the complaint would be held on September 16. But prior to the hearing, David Ryan, the attorney representing East Haven, phoned Betsy Ingraham, the attorney representing Pirrotti, to discuss the town’s handling of the FOIA request.

Ryan told Ingraham that “he intended to file a motion to postpone the scheduled hearing because he was unavailable on such date, and that, as part of the motion, he was required to represent to the Commission that the parties were making a good faith effort to resolve the instant matter.” Ryan also told Ingraham he “had prepared an opinion letter” for the town that discussed the assistant chief’s hiring process and suggested providing Pirrotti with access to that legal memo, dated July 30, 2021, could resolve the complaint.

Ingraham said that she could not guarantee whether the single document would satisfy the request without seeing it. The FOIC’s decision notes that at this stage, it had been 119 days since Pirrotti filed her FOIA request and that the town had not provided her with any responsive records. As part of the conversation around rescheduling the hearing date, Ryan told the FOIC in a motion that Luzzi had recently turned the request over to his office and that “counsel immediately began reviewing documents and have been continuously working on reaching a resolution of the matter with the complainant.”

On September 20, 2024, after the hearing date had been rescheduled to November 6, Ingraham emailed Ryan and asked for a status update on the offer to provide the legal memo “and other responsive records.” Ingraham specifically inquired about the status of other responsive documents based on Ryan’s statement in the FOIC motion that his office was reviewing records.

Ingraham received no response and again emailed Ryan on September 26, writing, “You obtained a continuance of the FOI hearing with the commission on the representation that we were working toward a resolution–but right now, that seems to be stalled.”

Ryan responded on October 1 stating that they had agreed to show Pirrotti the memo “on a screen in his office so that the complainant could decide whether she wished to pursue her FOI request.” According to the hearing officer’s report, Ryan also told Ingraham that as of that date, the town had not searched for or reviewed any responsive records. The hearing officer’s report further notes that at that point, it had been 152 days since Pirrotti filed her request.

On October 16, Ingraham visited Ryan’s office to view the memo on Pirrotti’s behalf. Since Pirrotti could not attend, Ingraham proposed letting Pirrotti view the document by showing it on video through her cell phone. According to the hearing officer’s report, Ryan objected to the idea because “Ingraham might videotape the legal memorandum.” Ingraham said that as an officer of the court she would not do that and Ryan replied that he did not trust her. Ingraham agreed to take notes and took out her computer to do so, but Ryan said she could not have electronic devices or take notes.

Ingraham then spoke with Pirrotti and after Ryan “informed her that he was not going to show her the legal memorandum unless the complainant agreed to withdraw her FOI request.” When Ingraham refused, Ryan offered to provide Ingraham with a copy of the memo, which she could leave with and give to Pirrotti, if they agreed not to pursue the request. Ingraham refused and left.

When the first hearing in the case occurred on November 6, 2024, the town had not provided any responsive documents. The town admitted during the hearing that they “still had not gathered or reviewed any documents.” The hearing officer’s report notes that 188 days had passed since Pirrotti filed her request.

The town argued “that they were under no obligation to provide responsive public records to the complainant because she was requesting public records on behalf of a client, who had filed a federal civil action against the Town of East Haven, and therefore the rules of federal discovery, not the FOI Act, governed what records the respondents were required to provide.” They also presented a motion to dismiss.

After the first hearing, the hearing officer ordered the town to submit all responsive records it claimed were exempt from disclosure for in camera review by November 27. Ingraham was also ordered to respond to the motion to dismiss by December 3. The motion was later denied.

However, the only record the town submitted for review was the legal memo it had previously offered to Pirrotti. According to hearing officer Valicia Dee Harmon, she refused the record “as it was in total noncompliance with her order.”

On November 27, Harmon issued a second order for in camera review, directing the town to “search for and gather all records responsive to each and every part of the complainant’s request” they were claiming as exempt. It also specified that the records needed to be unredacted, and ordered them to be turned over by December 10.

The town again did not comply and instead filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss at 4:49 PM on December 10.

On December 12, Harmon issued a third order for in camera review, directing all responsive records for which the town was claiming an exemption to be turned over on December 23. Harmon also notified Luzzi that they would hold a hearing to consider imposing a civil penalty against him on January 22, 2025.

On December 19, 2024, Ryan “appeared at the Commission with the same three-page record that the respondents had attempted to submit for in camera inspection on November 27.” Harmon again rejected the legal memo, stating the town had been ordered on two separate occasions to provide all records they were claiming were exempt. According to Harmon’s report, Ryan said “other than the legal memorandum, which was being claimed exempt from disclosure, the respondents were going to provide the complainant with all records responsive to the request, without redactions.”

Based on that statement, Harmon accepted the legal memo. On December 30, 2024, Harmon issued an order directing the town to file an affidavit describing their search for records, listing the records they had produced, and confirming they were provided without redactions by January 13, 2025. Ingraham was also directed to confirm to the commission that the records were received by January 15.

On January 13, Ryan filed an affidavit saying that “a thorough search for records is being conducted” and anticipating that all responsive records would be provided on or before January 22.

Harmon noted in her report that this did not comply with her order.

“Moreover, despite the averment in his affidavit, Attorney Ryan never “supplemented” the administrative record with an additional affidavit detailing the number of pages the respondents provided to the complainant.” Harmon wrote in her report.

At a second hearing held in the case, during which the civil penalty against Luzzi was considered, Harmon found that Pirrotti had still not received any responsive records. Harmon found during the hearing that the town sent an email on January 15 to ten people within the agencies named in the request asking for help locating records.

Harmon noted that, despite Ryan’s previous statements that records had been searched for and would be provided the January 15 email was “the first evidence in this case of the respondents’ attempt to gather records responsive to the request.” Harmon also noted that, as of January 15, it had been 258 days since Pirrotti filed the request.

On January 22, the town provided Pirrotti with 222 pages of records. Nine pages contained documents she had not previously received. The remaining records were either records Pirrotti had received through federal discovery in her client’s case or were not responsive to the request. Ingraham complained at the second hearing that the request had still not been fulfilled.

Harmon’s report found that the town did not follow its self-described FOIA process in handling Pirrotti’s request. During hearings in the case, Luzzi testified that all FOIA requests received by the town, except for requests received by the police department, are forwarded to him. Upon receipt, Luzzi reviews the request and forwards it to individuals in the agency likely to have responsive records. After the agencies search for records, they are supposed to turn them over to Luzzi for review and disclosure.

But Harmon found that Pirrotti’s request was forwarded to Ryan and several other attorneys the town had retained to settle the federal litigation.

“Luzzi contended that the FOI request was forwarded to settlement counsel so that they could “assist” in the resolution of the complainant’s allegations of non-compliance concerning her request for public records. While there is no evidence in the record to establish when [Luzzi] forwarded the instant request to [the settlement counsel for the federal suit], it is found that the earliest date that could have happened is December 12, 2024, the date on which the Town retained such counsel.” Harmon wrote in her report.

Harmon’s report also noted that around December 28, two weeks after the FOIC gave notice it was going to consider imposing a penalty against Luzzi, the settlement counsel “offered to conduct a search for records responsive to the complainant’s request.” But Harmon noted they only had access to records disclosed in the federal suit.

“In fact, [Luzzi] conceded that there may be records in the possession of the town respondents that are responsive to the request, which are not in the possession of settlement counsel. Nonetheless, it is found that, on or about February 6, 2025, four days prior to the second hearing on this matter, the complainant sent thirty or so search terms to settlement counsel and requested that such terms be run in the database of records to which they had access.” Harmon wrote in her report.

Inside Investigator has previously reported on how East Haven routes all FOIA requests through Luzzi and how this may contribute to the long wait times for FOIA requests that exist in the town. As part of an investigation into FOIA in East Haven, Inside Investigator submitted a FOIA request seeking a record of all requests that had been received by various town departments within the past year on April 22, 2024. Over a year later, that request is still outstanding, and Inside Investigator has not received any responsive documents or communication about the status of the request.

On February 6, Luzzi hired NextGen, a contractor that works with governments, to search for records. While Harmon found that these searches “constitute reasonable precursors to a productive search ” she also found that the search had not been conducted by either the town or NextGen prior to the second hearing, which took place 284 days after Pirrotti’s request.

When the commission finally conducted an in camera review of the legal memo on December 19, 2024, they found it did meet the definition of privileged attorney-client communication and was exempt from disclosure.

Harmon also found that the town failed to act in good faith in their handling of the requests, writing that the town “essentially held records responsive to the request hostage and attempted to extract a withdrawal.” She also found that while Ryan stated the town was engaged in a good faith effort to settle the complaint, they had “filed misleading motions; refused to follow orders; made conflicting representations; provided less than candid testimony during the course of the proceedings; and generally availed themselves of every opportunity to frustrate the complainant’s FOI rights.”

Harmon also found that the town only “purported to conduct a search for responsive records” after the FOIC threatened to impose a civil penalty against Luzzi.

“It is abundantly clear, and it is therefore found, that the respondents did not provide the complainant with public records promptly and refused to follow the law.” Harmon wrote.

Harmon also cited the town’s failure to comply with in camera orders, misrepresentations made in its attempt to delay the first hearing, and failure to conduct an initial search for records until 258 days after Pirrotti’s request was filed, in her decision to fine Luzzi.

While Harmon recommended a $2,500 fine, the FOIC doubled that amount when it met to hear and vote on Harmon’s report.

At that meeting, Ryan argued against the imposition of the fine. He claimed the record showed that prior to the federal suit, Pirrotti’s law firm had made a request that Luzzi complied with. He further argued that the town had complied with another request related to the federal suit, as well as provided “thousands of documents” in the suit. Ryan attempted to distinguish the town’s response from cases where Bridgeport has been assessed a civil penalty for failing to turn over records.

Ingraham said that the town arguing they had previously complied with FOIA requests to show the civil penalty should not be assessed actually did them a disservice because it showed they knew their obligations but chose not to follow them in responding to Pirretti’s complaint. Ingraham also said Pirretti was still waiting on records and could not imagine a situation where the full $5,000 penalty would not be justified.

Harmon stated during the FOIC’s April 23 meeting that the town’s noncompliance behavior was the worst she had seen in her almost 20 years with the FOIC.

Commissioner Chris Hankins said it was the “most egregious abuse” of FOIA he had ever seen. He pointed to the portion of Harmon’s report that described the exchange between Ingraham and Ryan when Ingraham went to view the legal memo as a “standalone” reason to increase the fine to $5,000. The commission voted unanimously to adopt the increased fine, with the recommendation of Harmon.

Harmon’s report also ordered the town to provide all responsive records to Pirrotti’s request free of charge within 14 days and ordered the town to conduct FOIA training.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.