High Court Refuses To Overturn Records Case

HARTFORD (AP) — The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against overturning precedent in a judicial open records case that figured in the departure of former Chief Justice William Sullivan.

In a 7-0 vote, justices affirmed a Hartford Superior Court decision against Vincent Valvo, a freedom of information advocate who sought access to court dockets. In the decision released Tuesday, the justices said Valvo’s claims that sealed dockets are administrative records subject to Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act cannot be settled by law or a court “because no practical relief is available.”

While Valvo’s appeal was pending, the judicial branch reviewed certain sealed cases to determine whether the sealing orders should be overturned, the Supreme Court said. All but five of the dockets requested by Valvo and others were unsealed and the office of chief court administrator said it did not have authority to issue orders to unseal files, the Supreme Court said.

The most recent conflict over open records in Connecticut dates to 2006, when Sullivan retired as chief justice after acknowledging he delayed the release of a ruling to keep certain court records secret. He said he was trying to help a fellow justice win confirmation to succeed him as chief justice.

Sullivan was later suspended for 15 days for violating judicial ethics codes.

Following the uproar, the acting chief justice established a committee to consider ways to improve the openness of the judiciary, including posting criminal docket information online.

However, Valvo criticized the Supreme Court decision for failing to promote judicial openness in Connecticut.

“Since it was first revealed that Connecticut’s judiciary prefers to conduct its business without the public’s prying eyes, judicial leaders have said to the world that they embrace openness while simultaneously fighting it,” he said. “And when now, twice given the opportunity to rule that the public has a right to see basic docket information, they have twice ruled just the opposite.”