Court Sanctions Requestor’s Attorney for Frivolous OPRA Litigation

I’ve previously noted that the necessity of defending meritless OPRA lawsuits imposes substantial costs on the public. But a recent Appellate Division opinion shows that public bodies have the ability to recoup the expense of litigating an OPRA suit, by seeking monetary sanctions against requestors who pursue frivolous claims.

In Valentin v. Boro of Penns Grove, the requestor sued the Borough, claiming it had not responded to his OPRA request. In fact, within several days of receiving the request, the custodian had notified the requestor that the responsive documents could be picked up.

The Borough’s attorney notified the requestor’s attorney of this, and demanded that the complaint be withdrawn. The attorney refused, stating that the custodian had not produced all requested records.

The Appellate Division upheld the trial judge’s order, issued pursuant to the frivolous litigation court rule, that the requestor’s attorney pay the Borough’s attorneys fees of $1725. The court said this sanction was appropriate because the requestor’s attorney, knowing that the complaint falsely stated there had been no response made to the OPRA request, nevertheless proceeded with the litigation.

The court also rejected the argument that a sanction wasn’t warranted because the requestor believed that not all responsive records had been provided in the response to the OPRA request. The court characterized this belief as not “objectively reasonable;” it concluded that the Borough had properly responded to the request.

This aspect of the opinion is especially notable. It’s not uncommon for requestors to pursue litigation based on their belief that they did not receive all responsive records. As this case shows, such a belief must be reasonable. Compliance with this requirement by requestors will forestall frivolous OPRA suits and save taxpayers’ dollars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *