Tag Archives: Supreme Court

A New Supreme Court OPRA Opinion–The County Prosecutors Association is Not Covered by OPRA or the Common Law Right to Public Records

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court recently issued a new opinion dealing with OPRA’s section that defines what is a public agency that’s subject to OPRA. The Court held that the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (CPANJ)–501(c) nonprofit made up of the 21 county prosecutors– is not a public agency under OPRA. The Court also held that CPANJ is not a public entity whose records are covered by the common law. ACLU v. CPANJ.

The Court determined that CPANJ is not (per OPRA’s definition of a covered public body) an “instrumentality” created by “political subdivisions.” The “core question” here was whether a county prosecutor is a “political subdivision.” The Court concluded (as did the Appellate Division) that a prosecutor is not a political subdivision, so CPANJ is not a public agency within the meaning of OPRA.

Significantly, the Court rejected the argument that CPANJ is covered by OPRA because it engages in governmental law enforcement functions. The Court emphasized that OPRA’s definition of a covered entity does not have a “governmental function test.” The only question, said the Court, is whether an entity falls within the language of OPRA’s definition of a public agency.

When I wrote about the Appellate Division’s decision in this case, I commented that the requestor’s effort to obtain records from CPANJ was actually unnecessary, given that it could use OPRA to seek from prosecutors’ offices, the Attorney General’s Office, or any other public agency these agencies’ communications with CPANJ. The Supreme Court alluded to this point in its opinion, noting that the “decision affirming the dismissal of the ACLU’s OPRA claim against CPANJ does not preclude the ACLU from requesting the same categories of documents from one or more public agencies subject to OPRA.”

Supreme Court to Review Whether OPRA’s Exemptions Apply to Police Body Worn Camera Videos

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court recently announced that it has granted review of a case that presents the novel issue of whether OPRA exemptions apply to police body worn camera recordings. Fuster v. Boro of Chatham.

My post on the Appellate Division’s opinion in this matter explains this case in more detail. In brief, the requestor argues that the Legislature abrogated the application of OPRA exemptions to body worn camera (BWC) videos when it enacted the BWC statute in 2021.

OPRA clearly precludes disclosure of the video requested here, pursuant to the exemption established in case law that maintains the confidentiality of investigative records regarding a person who has not been arrested or charged. But the requestor argues that this OPRA exemption does not apply to a BWC, because the BWC permits withholding BWC videos only for certain reasons, which do not include this OPRA exemption.

The Appellate Division didn’t buy this argument, but it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will interpret the interplay of the two statutes. The stakes in this case are quite high: acceptance of the requestor’s position would mean that OPRA effectively no longer applies to requests for police BWC recordings.

In addition to this important issue, the case presents another question that may have a significant impact on law enforcement agencies. In granting review, the Supreme Court also said that it will consider whether the BWC video in question should be released under the common law. This will require the Court to examine whether the strong privacy and confidentiality interests that typically support not disclosing investigatory records should apply here.

2023 OPRA Case Law Review

Leave a reply

The courts issued were many OPRA case rulings during 2023, but only a handful of precedential opinions. However, the three precedential opinions resolved crucial government records law questions.

In June, the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion, Gannett v. Neptune Tp., holding that a successful common law records requestor is not entitled to an award of attorney fees. This ruling ended decades of uncertainty as to whether common law requestors, like OPRA requestors, may demand that public bodies pay their litigation fees.

The Appellate Division issued two published opinions involving OPRA. Just before the end of the year, the court determined that the custodian had properly withheld disclosure of a body worn camera video under OPRA’s exemption for the confidentiality of law enforcement records concerning a person who has not been arrested or charged with a crime. Fuster v. Tp. of Chatham. This holding rested on the court’s resolution of an issue of first impression–it concluded that the disclosure exemptions of the body worn camera statute do not rescind other exemptions provided for in OPRA.

Lipsky v. NJ Assn of Health Plans dealt with a frequent issue for OPRA custodians–how to respond to a request for records potentially contained within employees’ cell phones. The Appellate Division ruled on a discovery dispute, holding that a party in pending litigation may not compel a non-party State agency to turn over its employees’ State-issued and personal cell phones to the party’s expert for forensic examination. This conclusion relied heavily on OPRA law. The Appellate Division emphasized that public employees have strong privacy interests in their phones’ contents, so where there’s an OPRA request for records from employees’ phones, it is improper for the agency to search the device for responsive records. Instead, to protect the privacy interests at stake, the agency must ask employees to conduct the search of their devices for responsive records.

Supreme Court to Review Whether OPRA Requires Disclosure of Residents’ Email Addresses

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court recently granted review of a consequential OPRA issue: the applicability of OPRA’s privacy provision to residents’ personal email addresses. Since OPRA’s enactment, municipalities have been frustrated by the absence of precedential case law governing requests for residents’ email addresses. The Supreme Court will now remedy this situation, in Rise Against Hate v. Cherry Hill.

Specifically, the question in the case, according to the Court’s website, is:

“Are email addresses submitted by members of the public to a public agency to sign up for electronic newsletters and notices subject to disclosure under the Open Public Records Act?”

In this case, the Appellate Division held that OPRA’s privacy section prohibited disclosure of the email addresses. As I explained here, the Appellate Division determined that people have an expectation of privacy in their email addresses, and these privacy interests outweighed the requestor’s interest in disclosure, where residents provided their email information to the municipalities for receipt of “periodic, generic newsletters and notices.”

Although this case only involves email addresses that were submitted for receipt of newsletters and notices from municipalities, presumably the Supreme Court’s analysis will also provide guidance on how to handle an OPRA request for a personal email address that a public body has received, for any other reason.

Supreme Court: Custodians Should Be Trained In Handling Common Law Records Requests

Leave a reply

In Gannett v. Neptune Tp., its recent opinion holding that common law record requestors have no right to attorney fees, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of recommending that custodians receive training in how to deal with common law requests. As I’ll explain, public entities that fail to provide this suggested training run the risk of paying requestors’ attorney fees and court costs.

Noting that common law record requests often present complex issues, the Court

recommend[ed] that municipal clerks and other records custodians
for public entities receive comprehensive training with respect to common law
right of access claims, and that they be directed to carefully review each
request and provide a response that comports with the law.

Although the Court’s recommendation is not a binding directive, its opinion suggests a potential adverse consequence if a custodian does not receive appropriate training. The opinion states that attorney fees are not automatically awarded in common law matters, to enable public entities “to formulate a good-faith legal position on the disputed information and to litigate that position, without the risk of an award of attorneys’ fees in the event that a court later rejects it.” But the Court then cautions that the sanctions for frivolous litigation positions–which include awarding attorney fees–still apply to common law record disputes. According to the Court, these sanctions may be imposed where a custodian denies a request for a record that the Court has previously deemed to be subject to disclosure under the common law.

In short, the Court has signaled that if a custodian has not been trained in the common law right of access to records, and incorrectly rejects a request for a record that case law has determined to be disclosable under the common law, the public entity will face the risk of monetary sanctions.

I offer training programs regarding the common law right to records, for both custodians and attorneys. Please contact me at lewscheindlin@gmail.com if you are interested.

Supreme Court Holds That There Is No Right To Attorney Fees In Common Law Records Requests

Leave a reply

A successful OPRA plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees, but for the past 15 years, it has not been clear whether a litigant who obtains records only under the common law right to records may be awarded attorney fees. The Supreme Court has finally resolved this important issue, holding that successful common law requestors have no entitlement to attorney fees. Gannett Sat. Info. Network v. Tp. of Neptune.

Despite the absence of any legal basis for requiring public bodies to pay a common law requestor’s attorney fees, since 2008 the courts often ordered such awards, relying exclusively on a sentence in the Supreme Court opinion in Mason v. City of Hoboken, an OPRA case. The sentence seems to say attorney fees may be awarded in common law records cases. But as I stated in this 2021 analysis, Mason did not hold, and should not be understood to suggest, that attorney fee awards are permissible in common law records matters.

In Gannett, the Court agreed; it said that the Mason opinion’s “brief allusion” to common law attorney fees was not a ruling on the question of whether they are required. In directly deciding this issue, the Gannett Court unambiguously held that attorney fees may not be awarded to a successful common law requestor.

This ruling is hugely important. OPRA’s mandatory attorney fee award provision imposes substantial costs on public bodies: not only must they pay attorney fees to successful OPRA litigants, they also incur the expense of having to litigate the attorney fee portion of the OPRA case. These costs now do not apply to common law record requests.

The Supreme Court Takes a New OPRA Case

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court recently granted review in ACLU v. County Prosecutors Assn of NJ, to determine whether this organization of county prosecutors is a public agency that is subject to OPRA.

The Appellate Division held that CPANJ is not subject to OPRA. As explained in this post, the court determined that it is a private entity, formed by prosecutors, not political subdivisions, and lacking governmental authority.

Supreme Court to Review Whether Attorney Fees May Be Awarded in Common Law Records Cases

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court will decide a longstanding, problematic issue in government records law: whether a requestor who obtains records through a common law request may be awarded attorney fees.

In a 2021 opinion, Gannett v. Tp. of Neptune, the Appellate Division held that a successful common law requestor may receive an attorney fee award. However, the court denied a fee award in this case, based on the conclusion that the request was not the catalyst for the eventual release of the records in question. See this post for a summary of the opinion.

The Supreme Court granted certification in this case last week. According to the Supreme Court’s website, the Court will consider: “In this lawsuit seeking police department internal affairs records, was plaintiff entitled to attorneys’ fees and does the catalyst theory apply to a common law right of access claim?”

No court has ever squarely held that there is a legal basis for common law requestors to receive attorney fee awards. Instead, as I’ve discussed previously (in this 2021 post), the argument that common law requestors are entitled to attorney fees is based exclusively on dicta; specifically, a brief comment made in a Supreme Court opinion in a 2008 case in which the Court was considering only an OPRA request, not a common law request. In Gannett, for the first time, the Court will be able to review the common law attorney fee question fully and resolve the uncertainty over this important issue that has existed since 2008.

Analysis: The Supreme Court’s Recent Opinions Strengthen OPRA Exemptions

Leave a reply

In March, the Supreme Court issued two highly consequential OPRA opinions. These cases are particularly significant because, in both matters, the Court rejected arguments that the applicable OPRA exemptions should be cast aside. Instead, the Court ensured the continuing viability of the exemptions for personnel records and police internal affairs records.

In Libertarians for Transparent Govt. v. Cumberland County, the requestor, the ACLU, and other organizations asked the Court to disregard OPRA’s personnel exemption and hold that the public is entitled to disclosure of all settlements of internal disciplinary actions. The Court declined this invitation to weaken the personnel exemption. Instead, it reiterated the longstanding requirement of OPRA that public employee personnel records–which include records of disciplinary settlements–are strictly confidential. A limited exception to this rule is that OPRA expressly designates certain personnel information as public, including the reason for the employee’s separation from employment.

In Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor, the Court similarly rejected the requestor’s main argument–that OPRA does not exempt police internal affairs records from disclosure. The Court unambiguously held that these records are exempt under OPRA, thereby precluding automatic public access to them. The Court said such records are only potentially disclosable through a common law records request.

Thus, these cases are important in two ways: they provide guidance on crucial OPRA issues, and they conclusively reject efforts to undermine OPRA’s confidentiality guarantees.

Supreme Court Holds That Police Internal Affairs Reports are Confidential Under OPRA, But May be Accessed Under The Common Law

Leave a reply

The Supreme Court issued its second OPRA opinion in March, Rivera v. Union Prosecutor. As I predicted, the Court held that records of police internal affairs investigations are exempt under OPRA, but ordered release of the internal affairs report in question under the common law.

Prior Supreme Court opinions indicated that internal affairs records are not accessible under OPRA. In Rivera the Court put to rest any possible claim that these records may be obtained through an OPRA request. It held that internal affairs reports are exempt because the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure, which has the force of law, requires their confidentiality.

The Court also stated, consistent with settled law, that this type of exempt record may be accessed under the common law, if in the particular situation, the interest in disclosure outweighs the need for confidentiality. The Court reiterated the important confidentiality considerations that must be taken into account in conducting this balancing, and it also provided guidance on the factors that may favor disclosure of an internal affairs report.

The Court held that the report at issue in the case should be made public under the common law, as it concerned a matter of considerable public interest, involving racist and sexist misconduct by the City of Elizabeth Police Director. The Court remanded the case to the trial court to conduct the common law balancing test to determine specifically what portions of the report should be made public. Notably, the Court also stated that the trial court must ensure redaction of information in the report that warrants confidentiality, including names of complainants, witnesses, informants, and cooperators; personal information of officers and other individuals; and other information protected by privacy interests.