John Paff v. Galloway Township (077692) (Atlantic and Statewide)
162 A.3d 1046
| N.J. | 2017Background
- In June 2013 John Paff sought from Galloway Township an email log (for June 3–17, 2013) listing four fields from emails sent by the Township Clerk and Police Chief: sender, recipient, date, and subject. He did not request email contents.
- The Township denied the request, relying on Government Records Council (GRC) guidance that a custodian is not required to create new records in response to an OPRA request; the Township had previously generated similar logs ad hoc but stopped after the GRC guidance.
- Paff sued in Superior Court under OPRA (and asserted a common-law right of access). The trial court ordered production, finding the requested fields were “information stored or maintained electronically” and thus government records under OPRA.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding OPRA does not require creation of new records (even by extracting electronically stored information) and gave substantial deference to the GRC guidance.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division: it held that electronically stored information (including discrete email fields) qualifies as a government record under OPRA, remanding for the trial court to consider whether any exceptions, exemptions, or redactions apply.
Issues
| Issue | Paff's Argument | Galloway's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extracting discrete fields (sender, recipient, date, subject) from government email accounts constitutes creating a new record or is an OPRA government record | The requested fields are electronically stored information and thus existing government records under OPRA; extraction is not creation of new information | If the Township does not maintain an email log, OPRA does not require the Township to create one; requester must take the whole emails or nothing | The Court held the discrete fields are "information stored or maintained electronically" and thus government records under OPRA (reversing App. Div.) |
| Whether the GRC’s informal guidance that custodians need not create records is entitled to substantial deference | GRC guidance should not override OPRA’s text and purpose; GRC decisions have no precedential value in Superior Court | Township relied on GRC guidance to deny requests | The Court declined to accord substantial deference to the GRC’s informal guidance and emphasized statutory limits on GRC precedential weight |
| Whether OPRA permits charging or denying when production requires IT manipulation | OPRA contemplates fees when a request requires substantial programming; minor extraction is permitted and fee rules apply | Creating logs could impose burdens and justify denial or fees | Because the Township conceded the request required only minimal IT time (2–3 minutes), the Court held extraction fell within OPRA-record production (fees apply only if substantial manipulation is needed) |
| Whether the common-law right of access independently justified disclosure | Paff raised the common-law claim as an alternative | Appellate Division rejected the common-law claim for lack of a clear purpose to the request | The Supreme Court did not decide the common-law issue (OPRA disposition made it unnecessary) and declined to endorse the Appellate Division’s dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005) (rejects open-ended requests that require agencies to collate or research general information)
- Bent v. Township of Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2005) (discusses limits on OPRA requests for information vs. records)
- Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex, 141 N.J. 35 (1995) (interpreting pre-OPRA Right-to-Know restrictions on obtaining computer records)
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (recognizes importance of an informed citizenry in access cases)
- McGee v. Township of East Amwell, 416 N.J. Super. 602 (App. Div. 2010) (discusses deference to GRC decisions when they are final agency adjudications)
- Commonwealth v. Cole, 52 A.3d 541 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012) (holding extraction of information from an electronic database is not the creation of a new record)