Harry Scheeler v. Office of the Governor, Andrew J.
153 A.3d 293
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2017Background
- In Feb.–Jun. 2014, plaintiffs (Scheeler, Paff, Greico) sought copies of OPRA requests submitted to various NJ state agencies (Governor’s Office, MVC, DOE, ABC, DMVA, Treasury, DCA, State Police) during specified timeframes; some requests were submitted anonymously.
- Agencies denied access to third-party OPRA requests, relying on this court’s discussion in Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. County of Middlesex and, for anonymous requests, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2.2(c).
- Scheeler sued seeking disclosure (and later moved for reconsideration on the anonymous-request ruling); Paff and Greico sued after similar denials/redactions by MVC and DOE.
- The trial court held third-party OPRA requests are “government records” under OPRA and not categorically exempt; it ordered production (with limited redactions for anonymous requests) and awarded attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs.
- Defendants appealed, arguing Gannett and OPRA’s specificity/privacy provisions justified withholding third-party OPRA requests; the Appellate Division reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether third-party OPRA requests are "government records" subject to disclosure | Plaintiffs: OPRA defines government records broadly; requests received/kept by agencies fall within that definition and are disclosable absent an exemption | Defendants: Gannett suggests requests for third-party OPRA requests are improper; OPRA wasn’t intended as a research tool and requests lack required specificity | Held: Third-party OPRA requests are government records under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 and disclosable unless an OPRA exemption applies; plaintiffs’ requests here were sufficiently specific |
| Whether Gannett binds agencies to deny all third-party OPRA-request disclosures | Plaintiffs: Gannett’s discussion was dicta and not binding on the issue | Defendants: Gannett held such requests are improper and supports blanket denials | Held: Gannett’s remarks on propriety were dicta and not binding; Gannett did not definitively authorize blanket denial of third-party OPRA requests |
| Whether anonymity or privacy justifies blanket refusal to produce OPRA requests submitted anonymously | Plaintiffs: Anonymous requestors have no per se privacy right; agencies must apply Burnett balancing before denying | Defendants: N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2.2(c) permits denying anonymous requests and privacy concerns counsel withholding | Held: Agencies may redact personal information but cannot categorically deny anonymous-request records; must apply privacy balancing (Burnett) case-by-case |
| Whether agencies met their burden to justify denial of access and whether plaintiffs were prevailing parties for fee awards | Plaintiffs: Agencies did not invoke statutory exemptions and failed to justify denial; plaintiffs prevailed and are entitled to fees | Defendants: Relied on Gannett dicta, anonymity statute, and general policy arguments | Held: Agencies failed to show a legal basis for denial; trial court correctly found plaintiffs prevailing and awarded fees under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. County of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 2005) (discusses propriety of requests for third-party records but court’s remarks on that issue are dicta)
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (articulates OPRA’s purpose to maximize public knowledge and construe exemptions narrowly)
- Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (2009) (establishes privacy balancing factors for OPRA disclosures)
- Asbury Park Press v. County of Monmouth, 406 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2009) (agencies bear burden to justify OPRA denial; broad disclosure presumption)
- State v. Goodwin, 224 N.J. 102 (2016) (supports de novo review of legal issues)