Amatucci v. Chase, Doc. No. 212-2013-CV-099 (Carroll Super. Ct., September 17, 2013) (Houran, J.)

Pages: 1 2




Docket No. 212-2013-CV-099

Josephine Amatucci


Chief Stuart Chase, Town of Wolfeboro Police Department


The court issued an order dated September 5, 2013 outlining the issues in this case and its procedural posture, and ordering the respondent to:

produce to the court under seal for in camera review and within 10 days of the date of the Clerk's notice of this order a true copy of Officer O'Brien's employment records with the Town of Wolfeboro, including without limitation any documents as may exist which show the hours he worked and including without limitation documents already provided to the petitioner.

Since issuance of that order, the petitioner, Josephine Amatucci (Ms. Amatucci or the petitioner) has filed four motions. The court takes up each in turn as follows.

Petitioner's Denial of 'In Camera' View by the Judge

By this motion, the petitioner objects to in camera review of documents under seal. As the court's September 5, 2013 order for in camera review under seal neither overlooked nor misapprehended any point of fact or of law, see e.g. Professional Firefighters v. HealthTrust, Inc., 151 N.H. 501, 506 (2004) ("[W]hen there is a question whether materials are exempt from public access, the trial judge should conduct an in camera review to determine whether portions of the materials meet any of the other statutory exemptions"), this motion is denied.

Motion to Amend Petitioner's Refusal for an 'In Camera' Review

The petitioner's request to supplement her earlier-filed motion entitled Petitioner's Denial of 'In Camera' View by the Judge is granted. Upon consideration of the information and arguments set out in this pleading, the court determines that its September 5, 2013 order for in camera review under seal neither overlooked nor [2] misapprehended any point of fact or of law, and the petitioner's request that the court provide the documents submitted under seal without in camera review is denied.

Petitioner's Response to Defendant's Letter of September 13, 2013

A portion of this pleading repeats arguments made by the petitioner in pleadings previously filed, and a portion expands on those arguments.1 The court will consider the petitioner's arguments as it conducts its in camera review of records and then resolves the issues raised in this Right-to-Know litigation.

Motion to Amend

By this pleading, the petitioner seeks to amend her Right-to-Know request, narrowing that request to weekly time sheets for Officer O'Brien for the entire month of December 2003 and the first two weeks of January 2004. Her request to so narrow her Right-to-Know request, and thus to narrow the issue to be resolved by this court, is granted.

So ordered.

September 17, 2013    /s/   

Steven M. Houran

Presiding Justice

1 A portion of this pleading also seems to raise issues having no bearing on the pending Right-to-Know request. The motivation of the citizen making a request under the Right-to-Know Law has, for example, no bearing on whether the information must be released under that Law.