John Paff v. Galloway Township (077692) (Atlantic and Statewide), A-88-15

John Paff filed an OPRA request seeking itemized "logs" (sender, recipient, date, subject) of emails sent by the Township Clerk and Chief of Police for June 3–17, 2013; he did not request the underlying emails themselves.
The Township had previously, on an informal basis, generated email logs in response to OPRA requests but discontinued that practice in late 2012 and thereafter declined to create new logs on request.
The Clerk consulted the Government Records Council (GRC) and received confirmation that a records custodian is not required to create new records in response to an OPRA request.
The Law Division ordered the Township to produce the requested logs, treating the requested sender/recipient/date/time/subject information as public "metadata" akin to a library card catalog and ordered production subject to in camera review and reasonable fees.
On appeal, the Appellate Division considered whether OPRA requires creation of a new record (an email log) that did not exist prior to the request, even though the underlying emails (and their metadata) are stored electronically.

Issue	Paff's Argument	Galloway's Argument	Held
Whether the requested email logs (sender/recipient/date/subject) are public "records"/metadata subject to OPRA	The requested lists are metadata already stored in electronic records; compiling them is just retrieving existing data, not creating a new record	The logs would be a newly compiled document that did not exist prior to the request and OPRA does not require creation of new records	The court held the logs are a newly created record and OPRA does not require creation of new records that did not exist at the time of request
Whether OPRA obligates a custodian to compile or create new documents (e.g., email logs) from existing electronic data	OPRA's broad mandate favors transparency; simple computer searches merely retrieve stored records and thus must be produced	OPRA does not require creation of records, only disclosure of existing records; compilations are not required	The court reaffirmed that OPRA does not require creation of new records or compilations; requests must be for existing records
Whether remand to consider common-law right of access was warranted	Paff asked that, if OPRA claim fails, court consider common-law access	Township argued no basis for common-law request, and plaintiff had no articulable public interest in the specific dates requested	Court refused remand because Paff could not articulate a public-interest basis for the request and thus no need to apply the broader common-law test

Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers, 210 N.J. 531 (2012) (OPRA does not require public agencies to create records)
Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dep't, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005) (custodian not required to conduct research or correlate data to create new records)
MAG Entm't, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005) (OPRA allows requests for records, not for information requiring compilation)
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP v. N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, 421 N.J. Super. 489 (App. Div. 2011) (de novo review of statutory interpretation in OPRA cases)