In the Matter of the New Jersey State Fireman’s Association Obligation to Provide Relief Applications Under the Open Public Records Act (077097) (Union County and Statewide)
A-68-15
N.J.Aug 3, 2017Background
- After the New Jersey Firemen’s Association (the Association) was declared a public entity, Jeff Carter submitted an OPRA request for John Doe’s relief-application materials and relief payment checks; Carter sought them to publicize alleged misconduct by Doe.
- The Association denied the request, citing applicants’ reasonable expectation of privacy because applications include detailed personal financial data; Carter insisted on disclosure with redactions.
- The Association filed a declaratory-judgment action (DJA) asking a court to declare whether it must disclose relief applications and checks; Carter countered that OPRA (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6) gives only the requestor the right to seek judicial review after a denial.
- The trial court reviewed Doe’s application in camera and denied disclosure under OPRA’s privacy exemption (applying the Burnett seven-factor test) and under the common-law access test (applying Loigman factors).
- The Appellate Division reversed: it held OPRA provides the exclusive remedy and only a requestor may sue, and it ordered disclosure of the payment records; the Supreme Court granted certification.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division: it held a custodian may not use the DJA after denying an OPRA request (the requestor alone may seek review), and—on the merits—concluded the relief checks were exempt from disclosure under OPRA and the common law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public entity may, after denying an OPRA request, file a declaratory-judgment action to resolve whether records must be disclosed | Carter: OPRA §6 gives only the requestor the right to institute proceedings after a denial; allowing custodians to use DJA would circumvent OPRA and chill requests | Association: DJA is a general statute available to anyone with a bona fide legal controversy; §6’s phrase “under this section” does not preclude DJA actions in other titles | Court: After an agency denies access, OPRA §6’s special procedure controls; only the requestor may seek judicial review (DJA cannot be used post-denial) |
| Whether the requested relief checks and applications fall within OPRA’s privacy exemption | Carter: Public interest in oversight of benefits paid to a public-entity member (especially one accused of misconduct) outweighs privacy; records should be disclosed with redactions | Association: Applications and checks contain sensitive financial/personal data and are entitled to protection; disclosure would harm applicants and chill applications | Court: Applying Burnett’s seven-factor test, the balance favors privacy; relief checks are exempt from disclosure under OPRA |
| Whether the common-law right of access requires disclosure of the relief checks | Carter: Common-law access and public-interest considerations justify disclosure to evaluate the Association’s award process | Association: Common-law balancing (Loigman) favors confidentiality because disclosure would impede functioning and chill applicants | Court: Applying Loigman factors, the common-law balance favors nondisclosure; privacy prevails |
| Whether the court should resolve the merits despite mooting the Association’s DJA action | Carter: The DJA action is barred; merits resolution unnecessary | Association: Even if DJA unsuitable, court can decide merits for judicial economy | Court: Although the DJA claim is moot, the Court decides the privacy/common-law issues on the merits and rules for nondisclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408 (N.J.) (adopted seven-factor test for OPRA privacy balancing)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (N.J.) (source of privacy-balancing considerations applied in OPRA cases)
- Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (N.J.) (six-factor common-law access confidentiality balancing)
- N.J. Turnpike Auth. v. Parsons, 3 N.J. 235 (N.J.) (ripeness/actual controversy requirement for declaratory relief)
- Lucky Calendar Co. v. Cohen, 20 N.J. 451 (N.J.) (courts must avoid advisory opinions; DJA barred on future/contingent facts)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S.) (ripeness and avoidance of premature adjudication)
- Trinity Cemetery Ass’n, Inc. v. Township of Wall, 170 N.J. 39 (N.J.) (specific statutory scheme controls over general statutes)