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.
Tompkins v. City of Newark–The custodian properly denied the request on the basis that there were no records, and appropriately indicated to the requestor that the records instead may be held by another agency.
Tompkins v. Essex Prosecutor–the portion of the request seeking the identity of the prosecutor who dismissed a certain complaint was an invalid request for information. The second part of the request was properly denied on the basis that the office did not have the requested records.
Kovacs v. Newark Police Dept.–the GRC reconsidered and reversed its order directing the custodian to comply with the request. Upon reconsideration, the GRC determined that the request, which asked for all arrest records and other reports pertaining to a specific individual, was an invalid research request. Because the request had no date range, the GRC concluded it would be an “immense burden” to locate responsive records.
King v. NJ DOC–the custodian properly denied access to information in a contractor’s RFP submission, based on the financial/proprietary/advantage to competitors exemption.
Scutro v. City of Linden–the custodian erred in failing to find and produce a requested record, but this was not a knowing and willful violation.
Nichols v. Bergen County Housing Authority–the GRC upheld the denial of the request because a trial judge had previously considered the same request and upheld its denial by the Bergen Housing Authority.
Barker v. Boro of Lakehurst–an agreement between the Boro and an employee, resolving a disciplinary matter involving that employee, is a confidential personnel record.
Verry v. Franklin Fire Dist. 1–the GRC dismissed the complaint as not ripe, because it was filed before the deadline for the custodian’s response to the OPRA request.
Rodriguez v. Kean U.–the custodian erred in withholding portions of some documents, but this was not a knowing and willful violation.
Scheeler v. Galloway Tp.–the custodian properly denied the initial request for a settlement agreement because at the time the request was made, the agreement had not been fully executed. And because the custodian subsequently provided the requestor with the executed agreement, there was no denial of access.
Durham v. NJ DOC–the custodian properly denied one request on the ground that there were no records. There was no denial of access as to another request, because the custodian made those records available for inspection.
Stolte v. Burlington Prosecutor–the request was properly denied because it did not contain enough information for the custodian to locate responsive records.
Stolte v. NJ Div. on Civil Rights–the request was properly denied because the agency had no responsive records.
Altomonte v. Branchburg School District–the custodian properly withheld records of a student pusuant to the requirements of FERPA.
Post v. NJ Office of Attorney General–there was no unlawful denial of access because the agency had no responsive records.