Correctional Med. Servs. v. State
426 N.J. Super. 106
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- CMS contracted with the State to provide inmate medical and dental services under a multi-year agreement through 2008, including an audit regime and liquidated damages provisions.
- A 2007–2008 CCAU dental audit and a separate OIG investigation found CMS underperforming; OIG recommended enforcing liquidated damages for the entire contract period.
- The State assessed liquidated damages totaling $3,608,981.06 and CMS challenged the process as improper under contract terms.
- CMS sought discovery of about 7,000 withheld/redacted documents; the State asserted deliberative process and official information privileges to shield them.
- The trial court held the deliberative process privilege did not apply and ordered production; it also addressed the official information privilege under N.J.R.E. 515, ultimately ordering production of the OIG materials.
- The matter proceeded on appeal, with the court reviewing whether the privileges shield the disputed documents in a breach-of-contract context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of deliberative process privilege | CMS argues the privilege does not cover pre- or post-decisional contract disputes tied to the CMS actions. | State contends the documents contain agency deliberations relevant to policy and decisionmaking. | Deliberative process privilege does not apply to these contract-related decisions. |
| Discoverability of factual material under deliberative privilege | CMS asserts the factual data within the documents should be disclosed where necessary to prove breach and damages. | State claims the materials remain protected as part of deliberative process. | Factual material within the sought documents is discoverable; privilege does not shield it here. |
| Official information privilege scope under N.J.R.E. 515 | CMS seeks OIG materials to challenge the state’s calculation and procedures surrounding damages. | State argues OIG materials should be protected to safeguard public interests. | OIG materials were not shown to cause specific public harm; production was required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrity Ins. Co. v. State, 165 N.J. 75 (2000) (deliberative privilege analyzed; openness of pre-decisional materials)
- Education Law Center v. N.J. Dept. of Educ., 198 N.J. 274 (2009) (deliberative-process and OPRA standards; policy formation context)
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. United States, 157 F.Supp. 939 (Ct.Cl. 1958) (policy/formulation versus litigation materials; limited privilege scope)
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (deliberative privilege protects policy-related discussions, not all government decisions)
- Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (limits on deliberative privilege; need to show policy formulation)
- McGee v. Township of East Amwell, 416 N.J. Super. 602 (2010) (OPRA deliberative privilege; public records context)
- Education Law Center v. N.J. Dept. of Educ. (recovery of data handling in funding context), 198 N.J. 274 (2009) (policy deliberation and access issues; illustrative framework)