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.
-Ciccarone v. Dept. of Treasury–GRC partially reconsiders prior decision ordering disclosure and permits redactions of certain advisory, consultative, deliberative and attorney-client material. Also, the custodian did not commit a knowing and willful violation.
-Post v. NJ Highlands Council–the custodian properly denied access because a draft document is exempt, and the other documents sought by the request did not exist at the time of the request.
-Campisi v. City of Millville–the complaint was dismissed because it was filed before the expiration of the extension of time to answer the request.
-Dello Russo v. East Orange-the City’s policy of not accepting electronically-submitted OPRA requests is unreasonable under OPRA, and therefore the City was required to respond to the request here, which was submitted by email. The custodian did not commit a knowing and willful violation.
-Lio v. Boro. of Fairview–the custodian erred by not timely answering the request, but the request was properly denied because police internal affairs records are exempt.
-McGeachy v. NJ DOC–the request for inmate financial records was properly denied under Exec. Order 26 (2002), which exempts personal financial information from disclosure.
-Stolte v. State Police–the request was properly denied because no responsive records existed.
-Watts v. City of Pleasantville–the custodian conducted an inadequate search, but the violation was not knowing and willful because she searched again and provided all responsive records to the requestor.
-Bangala v. NJ Office of Public Defender and Lemmon v. NJ Office of Public Defender–the requests were properly denied, because OPRA exempts all case file records of the Public Defender.
-DeYoung v. Boro. of Folsom–the complaint was dismissed because the complainant was not the requestor.