This blog regularly summarizes the final decisions issued by the GRC at its meetings. The following are the final decisions issued at the GRC’s most recent meeting. For summaries of decisions from prior meetings, see here.

-Boyle v. City of Hoboken: A request asking the custodian to identify police officers from their ID numbers in various reports was an invalid research request.

-Scheeler v. Dept. of Ed: The custodian erred in failing to advise requestor immediately that there were no responsive legal bills. The GRC also held that the requestor improperly challenged another part of the response by filing a complaint before the custodian’s extension period had expired.

-Huegel v. Newark-The custodian’s untimely response was not a knowing and willful violation.

-Caggiano v. Tp. of Green: The custodian properly denied the request because it did not comply with a Superior Court order that required this requestor to submit all his OPRA requests on the public body’s official form.

-Scheeler v. MVC: The custodian’s incomplete response was not a knowing and willful violation.

-Green v. Tp. of Vernon: The custodian did not violate the requestor’s right to make an anonymous request, because the requestor filed the request in person at the town office and later appeared there to pick up the requested records, thereby waiving any anonymity.

-Clancy v. Civil Service Commission: The requested record was confidential pursuant to a federal court order and therefore access was properly denied.

-Diaz-Young v. NJDOC: An internal prison investigatory report is exempt under the safety and security exemption.

-Kovacs v. Union Cty: The custodian’s untimely response was not a knowing and willful violation.

-Verry v. West Milford Bd. of Ed: The custodian’s untimely response was not a knowing and willful violation. In addition, the requestor was not entitled to attorney fees, because his filing of the GRC complaint was not the catalyst for the release of the requested records.

-Elkhill v. Tp. of Edison: The custodian’s untimely response was not a knowing and willful violation.

-Thompson v. Tp. of Mansfield: The custodian’s untimely response was not a knowing and willful violation. In addition, the requestor was not entitled to attorney fees, because she did not obtain the release of any records; the custodian certified that no responsive records could be found.