Burke v. Brandes
429 N.J. Super. 169
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Burke sought records under OPRA from the Governor’s Office about EZ Pass benefits for Port Authority retirees and related correspondence.
- Governor’s Office denied the request as overbroad under MAG Entm’t and did a limited review, producing one document but withholding others.
- Plaintiff filed a Law Division complaint alleging OPRA violation for failure to disclose responsive records.
- Trial court dismissed, holding the request was overbroad and lacking specificity for OPRA.
- Court of Appeals reviews de novo and analyzes OPRA’s purpose, the definition of government records, and the scope of accessible records.
- Court ultimately reverses and remands to address privilege/exemption claims and potential need for a privilege log.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the OPRA request overbroad or unduly broad in scope? | Burke: request was specific—EZ Pass benefits and related correspondence. | Governor’s Office: request was open-ended and improper under OPRA. | Request was specific enough; not overbroad. |
| Must the custodian provide a privilege log if records are withheld? | Burke: privilege assertions insufficient without log. | Agency should withhold under privilege but log requirements apply. | Remand to determine privilege and require a log if applicable. |
| Do the identified records exist and can they be located by a routine search? | Burke: responsive records could be found by routine search. | Overbreadth or need for analysis could justify withholding. | Records could be identified by routine search; not overbroad. |
Key Cases Cited
- MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App.Div.2005) (open-ended searches are not allowed; discretion to withhold based on exemptions)
- Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dep’t, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App.Div.2005) (specificity required; not a blanket request for information)
- Spectraserv, Inc. v. Middlesex Cnty. Utils. Auth., 416 N.J. Super. 565 (App.Div.2010) (OPRA does not countenance generalized data mining)
- Times of Trenton Publ’g Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Cmty. Dev. Corp., 183 N.J. 519 (2005) (defines government record broadly for OPRA)
- N.J. Builders Ass’n v. N.J. Council on Affordable Housing, 390 N.J. Super. 166 (App.Div.) (identity of documents must be described, not merely sought as data)
- Burnett v. County of Gloucester, 415 N.J. Super. 506 (App.Div.2010) (context of specific, identifiable records supports production)
- Paff v. N.J. Dep’t of Labor, 379 N.J. Super. 346 (App.Div.2005) (privilege descriptions should reveal nature of documents without disclosing privileged content)