JEFF CARTER VS. FRANKLIN FIRE DISTRICT NO. 2, ETC. Â (NEW JERSEY GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL), A-4726-14T1

Background

On December 18, 2011 Jeff Carter submitted an OPRA request to Franklin Fire District No. 2 seeking “all purchase orders, vouchers, purchase order vouchers and warrants, including invoices/attachments” relating to financial software used by the District, without any date range, vendor name, or other limiting identifiers.
The District did not respond to the OPRA request within seven business days; Carter filed a denial-of-access complaint with the Government Records Council (GRC).
The GRC requested a Statement of Information (SOI) from the District custodian; the custodian initially did not respond, and the GRC warned the matter would proceed on the complaint alone.
The GRC initially found the failure to respond constituted a denial but also concluded Carter’s request was invalid as overbroad and not specifically identified, so the custodian had no duty to search; it denied attorney’s fees to Carter.
After remand and an SOI from the current custodian, the GRC reaffirmed that the request was overbroad and re-adopted its prior findings; Carter appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carter’s OPRA request was sufficiently specific or was an overbroad blanket request	Carter argued the request identified the documents sought (purchase orders, invoices, vouchers) and cited Burke to say topic-based requests can be valid	District argued the request lacked essential identifiers (date range, vendor/party names) and thus required the custodian to perform an impermissible research obligation	Held: Request was overbroad and insufficiently specific; custodian had no duty to research and produce responsive records across unlimited time
Effect of District’s failure to timely respond (deemed denial) on burden and merits	Carter argued the custodian’s nonresponse means the GRC should have treated the denial in his favor and shifted burden	District did not contest deemed denial but argued substantive defense that request was invalid; GRC proceeded to evaluate that defense	Held: GRC properly deemed denial under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) but could and did consider the substantive defense that the request was invalid despite the custodian’s initial nonresponse
Entitlement to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party or as a “catalyst”	Carter contended the GRC’s interim order prompting a SOI made him a prevailing party/catalyst entitled to fees	GRC/District argued Carter did not obtain relief on the merits and did not prevail; interim order did not constitute relief that would support fees	Held: Carter was not a prevailing party or catalyst under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 and Teeters; no attorney’s fees awarded
Whether GRC should have referred the matter to OAL to determine willful/knowing violation	Carter argued referral was required to determine whether the custodian knowingly and willfully violated OPRA	GRC declined referral because it found the request invalid, resolving the complaint on the merits	Held: Court declined to reach the referral issue because GRC’s finding that the request was overbroad disposed of the case

Key Cases Cited

Burke v. Brandes, 429 N.J. Super. 169 (App. Div.) (topic-based requests can be valid where sufficiently specific)
Bent v. Township of Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div.) (OPRA requests must specifically describe the documents sought; not a blanket request)
Lagerkvist v. Office of Governor of State, 443 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div.) (OPRA is not a research tool forcing custodians to sift agency files)
Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp., 183 N.J. 519 (N.J.) (OPRA purpose: maximize public knowledge and transparency)
Teeters v. Division of Youth and Family Services, 387 N.J. Super. 423 (App. Div.) (analysis of catalyst theory and entitlement to fees)