K.L. v. Evesham Township Board of Education
32 A.3d 1136
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Plain-tiff sought school records about bullying incidents involving his children under OPRA; board refused to disclose records other than the children’s files and redacted one document; trial court held notes protected by attorney-client/work product privileges; board later disclosed one redacted disciplinary form and argued FERPA controlled fees; court considered Anti-Bullying Act prospectively, and analyzed common law right of access balancing; appellate court affirmed denial of access to notes, reversed on fees issue, and remanded for fee award related to the disclosed document; final disposition did not retain jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notes are OPRA records and exempt as work product | K.L. seeks notes as records; defendant asserts privilege | Notes are attorney work product and privileged | Notes are work product; not privileged attorney-client communications; disclosure denied under work product privilege but protected |
| Whether FERPA governs disclosure and fees for the disclosed document | Disclosures under OPRA or common law; fees should be awarded | FERPA controls; fees not recoverable | FERPA governs the disclosed document; fees awarded for OPRA/precedent but remanded for amount; court notes FERPA does not provide fee-shifting |
| Whether plaintiff has a common law right to access the disputed notes | Parent has significant personal/public interest in disclosure | Notes confidential; protected by work product | Common law right exists but is subordinate to work product protection; notes not disclosed now |
| Whether the Anti-Bullying Act affects disclosure rights | Act strengthens disclosure of bullying-related records | Act does not retroactively alter OPRA/records already in dispute | Act prospective; does not govern this case; leaves open future eligibility of records under OPRA/common law |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (N.J. 2008) (common-law right of access balancing; fees and scope considerations)
- Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. 205 (App.Div. 2005) (work product privilege recognized as OPRA exemption)
- Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98 (1996) (factors for balancing public/private access interests)
- Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., 198 N.J. 274 (2009) (common-law access factors in public records context)
- Shuttleworth v. City of Camden, 258 N.J. Super. 573 (App.Div. 1992) (practice on attorney's fees in access actions; context for fees)