Monthly Archives: December 2019

The 10 Most Important OPRA Court Opinions Of The Decade

Inspired by the countless lists that have been published recently of the past decade’s best books, movies, TV shows, etc., here’s my list of the most important OPRA opinions issued over the decade.

  1. North Jersey Media Group v. Lyndhurst Tp. (Supreme Court)–this landmark opinion governs access to virtually all law enforcement records and establishes how to apply the exemptions for criminal investigatory records and investigations in progress.

2. Paff v. Galloway Tp. (Supreme Court)–resolved an issue that comes up frequently, holding that OPRA requires public bodies to produce requested reports from information in electronic databases. In addition, for the first time, the Supreme Court adopted the “MAG rule” of the Appellate Division, confirming that OPRA requests requiring research and analysis are invalid.

3. Kovalcik v. Somerset Prosecutor’s Office (Supreme Court)–this opinion established two critically important principles: (1) OPRA’s personnel exemption is construed in favor of protecting the confidentiality of personnel information; and (2) the fact that the requestor has the ability, in pending litigation, to obtain discovery does not affect the requestor’s ability to file an OPRA request.

4. North Jersey Media v. Governor’s Office (App. Div.)–departing from what had been the standard practice, that only the GRC could impose OPRA’s penalties, the court held that trial judges have the authority to impose fines on public officials who violate OPRA.

5. Gilleran v. Bloomfield Tp. (Supreme Court)–the Court addressed OPRA’s security exemptions for the first time since OPRA’s enactment, and held that they bar release of building surveillance videos.

6. Matter of State Firemens Ass’n (Supreme Court)–two important holdings: (1) public bodies may not file OPRA declaratory judgment actions prior to answering requests; (2) OPRA’s privacy exemption covers information about an individual’s receipt of financial assistance.

7. L.R. v. Camden (Supreme Court)–held that OPRA cannot be used to obtain access to student records.

8. North Jersey Media v. Bergen County Prosecutor (App. Div.)–upheld the validity of the “Glomar” response to OPRA requests; to protect the confidentiality of investigations, an investigating agency may respond to a request concerning an investigation by stating it neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records.

9. Scheeler v. Atlantic County Mun. JIF (App. Div.)–held that the right to request records under OPRA is not limited to citizens or residents of New Jersey.

10. Ciesla v. Dept. of Health and Libertarians for Transparent Govt. v. GRC (both App. Div.)–these two appellate opinions make clear that all draft documents are entirely exempt.

OPRA For New Jersey Prosecutors

I had a great time last week presenting a full day training session to the Office of the Union County Prosecutor on “The Open Public Records Act for New Jersey Prosecutors.” The presentation, geared to assistant prosecutors, covered all the basics of OPRA, and also included in-depth discussion of topics such as access to law enforcement records, important OPRA case law, and OPRA litigation practice tips.

This presentation can be customized to the needs of any New Jersey law enforcement agency. Please email me at lewscheindlin@gmail.com if you would like more information about OPRA training.

The Appellate Division Reiterates A Basic Rule: A Custodian Is Not A Researcher Under OPRA

It’s a well-settled rule that an OPRA request requiring research by the custodian is invalid, but requestors nevertheless keep filing these kind of requests. In an opinion issued today, the Appellate Division, as it has done on many occasions, upheld the denial of a request on this basis. Carter v. Dept. of Community Affairs (unpublished).

The request in this case was a textbook example of an invalid research request. The requestor sought

“copies of any and all ‘Notice of Docketing’ records issued by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, resulting from an appeal (pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.91) of any final [agency] decision of the Local Finance Board [(LFB)] from August 9, 2011 through August 9, 2016.”

The Appellate Division agreed with the GRC that this is not a valid request. Because the request did not identify specific cases, it required the custodian to find out from other agencies what cases might be covered, locate these case files, and then analyze the case files to attempt to figure out if they contained relevant records. OPRA simply does not require records custodians to perform such research and analysis.