## Facts

- A requester sought copies of the Town of Greenwich’s computerized GIS data, including orthophotography, ArcInfo coverages, SQL server databases, and related documentation.
- The town’s Director of the Department of Information Technology denied the request under Connecticut’s FOIA, asserting two exemptions: (1) trade secrets and (2) information that would compromise the security or integrity of an information technology system.
- At the FOIC hearing, the town contended the GIS compilation had independent economic value and that disclosure could aid criminal activity by revealing detailed information about structures, fence lines, topography, and private security measures.
- The FOIC found the claimed harms speculative, concluded neither exemption applied, and ordered disclosure of the requested GIS data.
- The Superior Court dismissed the town’s administrative appeal and affirmed the disclosure order, finding insufficient evidence connecting disclosure to criminal activity and rejecting the trade-secret claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the municipal GIS database qualified as a “trade secret” exempt from disclosure under General Statutes § 1-210(b)(5)(A).
2. Whether the GIS data was exempt under General Statutes § 1-210(b)(20) as records whose disclosure would compromise the security or integrity of an information technology system or create a safety risk.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the FOIC’s determinations under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act such that the courts were required to uphold them.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment dismissing the town’s administrative appeal and upheld the FOIC’s disclosure order.
- The Court held the FOIC reasonably concluded, on substantial evidence, that the GIS data was not a trade secret within § 1-210(b)(5)(A).
- The Court held the FOIC reasonably concluded the town did not establish that disclosure would compromise IT-system security or create a cognizable safety risk within § 1-210(b)(20).
- The Court applied deferential administrative review, declining to reweigh evidence where the agency’s findings were reasonably supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- Connecticut FOIA is construed liberally in favor of disclosure, and statutory exemptions are construed narrowly; the public agency bears the burden to prove an exemption.
- Under UAPA review, an agency’s factual determinations are upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole; courts do not retry the case or substitute their judgment on factfinding.
- A compilation or digitization of information largely available in public records does not become a FOIA-exempt “trade secret” merely because it required investment or could generate revenue.
- The IT-security/safety-risk exemption requires a concrete, evidence-based showing that disclosure would compromise system security or create a safety risk; speculative assertions that data could be misused are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the FOIC’s order requiring disclosure of Greenwich’s GIS database because the town failed to prove the data was a trade secret or that releasing copies would compromise IT-system security or create a non-speculative safety risk, and because the FOIC’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence.


Dir., Dep’t of Info. Tech. v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 274 Conn. 179, 874 A.2d 785 (2005)