Some OPRA requestors abuse the system by burying public bodies under an avalanche of requests. See this post for an example, concerning a requestor who, over two months, submitted 380 requests to Teaneck, seeking nearly every possible category of municipal information.  Despite the obviously harassing nature of this volume of requests, the trial judge declined to issue an injunction to limit this person’s requests, based on the incorrect belief that the law does not authorize judges to take such action.

An Appellate Division opinion issued today shows that trial judges do indeed have the authority to place limits on requestors who submit too many requests. O’Boyle v. DiLorenzo.

O’Boyle submitted almost 900 requests to the borough of Longport over a several month period. The limited staff of this small borough attempted to respond, but the court noted that some employees were overwhelmed by the resulting workload and quit.

The Borough filed an order to show cause to bar O’Boyle from submitting additional document requests. The trial judge ruled that he could continue to submit requests, but also ordered that the Borough was not obligated to respond to any requests within OPRA’s time limit.

O’Boyle later filed suit against the Borough and various individuals, complaining about a number of different actions taken against him. One claim involved the OPRA matter; he argued the Borough violated Equal Protection by denying him his rights under OPRA.

The trial judge dismissed all of O’Boyle’s claims, and the Appellate Division affirmed for the reasons expressed by the trial judge. The court’s opinion does not describe the trial judge’s opinion or explain its legal reasoning. Nevertheless, this appellate case is of interest, in showing that a trial judge can place restrictions on an individual who submits an abusive amount of OPRA requests.