Here’s a look back at the most important OPRA opinions issued by the courts this year.
The Supreme Court issued two OPRA opinions in 2022, both in March–Libertarians for Transp. Govt. v. Cumberland County and Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor. In Libertarians, the Court held that an internal settlement agreement between a public employer and its employee is an exempt personnel record, but the portion of the agreement that contains the reason for the employee’s separation from employment must be disclosed. In Rivera, the Court reaffirmed that records of police internal affairs investigations are exempt under OPRA, but may be disclosable under the common law ability to access government records.
See also this post for additional analysis of how these two opinions have a significant impact on OPRA law and practice.
The Appellate Division also issued some major OPRA opinions, addressing issues of first impression:
–Underwood Properties v. Hackensack dealt with a common problem in OPRA matters–an attorney, in the course of representing a client, submits an OPRA request under his own name, rather than the client’s name, and then the client files a complaint over the denial of the request. The court held that the client has standing to file the OPRA litigation, despite not being identified as the requestor in the OPRA request.
Underwood is also one of the few published opinions that addresses the calculation of a requestor’s attorney fee award.
–C.E. v. Elizabeth Public Sch. Dist. held that settlements of OAL cases involving IDEA special education challenges must be disclosed under OPRA.
–ACLU v. CPANJ held that the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey is not an agency subject to OPRA.