In 2016, the courts are likely to render several major OPRA opinions dealing with new issues. Most attention, of course, will be on the two OPRA Supreme Court cases, Gilleran and Lyndhurst, which will be argued, and perhaps decided, this year. But there are also several cases that the Appellate Division will be deciding which may have an even greater impact on public bodies’ handling of OPRA requests.

It’s not clear when the Supreme Court will issue its opinions in Lyndhurst and Gilleran. The Court granted review of these cases in November and December 2015, and it usually issues its opinion around 12-16 months after granting review of a case. These cases involve the first time that the Court will consider the scope of OPRA’s exemptions for criminal investigatory records (Lyndhurst)  and for records related to safety and security (Gilleran).

Gilleran raises another important issue that has never been definitively addressed by the New Jersey courts–the interpretation of OPRA’s provisions concerning requests that are burdensome and disruptive. The request in Gilleran sought 14 hours of security camera footage. As explained here, although the Appellate Division described this request as “unreasonably burdensome” and “virtually impossible to accomplish without devoting the time and services of multiple employees,” it did not decide whether the request was invalid for this reason. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not also disregard the crucial question of whether the law permits such burdensome requests.

Even if the Supreme Court opinions are not issued during 2016, this year will still see extremely significant case law coming from the Appellate Division. Here are some key pending appeals:

–Paff v. Galloway Tp. presents a question that often comes up, but has never been resolved: is a custodian obligated under OPRA to create a new document from information contained in an agency’s database?

-Gannett v. Borough of Raritan involves several novel issues concerning access to records in electronic format and the amount a public entity may charge the requestor for converting the records to that format. The case is especially notable because the court is also reviewing the reasonableness of the $600,000 attorney fee award granted to the plaintiff. I expect this case to establish precedent governing how attorney fee awards should be calculated under OPRA.

–North Jersey Media v. Governor’s Office raises an issue that directly affects every public employee who handles OPRA matters–whether trial court judges have the legal authority to impose OPRA’s financial penalties for violations.

-Requestors continue to press for disclosure of information from internal affairs files. Paff v. Bergen County presents the issue of whether the names of officers and complainants shown in police department internal affairs complaints  must be disclosed.