Kovalcik v. Somerset County Prosecutor's Office
206 N.J. 581
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Kovalcik was indicted on multiple crimes; officers Houck and Ramos conducted part of the investigation.
- Kovalcik moved to compel production of the detectives’ curricula vitae and training/interrogation course records during pretrial proceedings.
- An oral denial of the motion to compel occurred in the criminal court; OPRA request then sought the same records from the county custodian.
- The custodian later located two Houck training documents and certificates; they were produced for in camera review.
- The trial court ruled there was no confidentiality order under OPRA and that the records were exempt as personnel records not within any exception.
- Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, then this Court granted certification and remanded for further proceedings to resolve the personnel-record exception with adequate proofs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a criminal-judge denial of discovery is an OPRA confidentiality order | Kovalcik argues denial equates to confidentiality under OPRA | Prosecutor argues denial functions as confidentiality shield | No; denial is not automatically confidentiality under OPRA |
| Whether Houck’s course list falls within the personnel-record exception for qualifications | List shows compliance with educational qualifications for employment | List may include courses not required for the job and thus remains exempt | Remanded for adequate proof to determine if the records disclose required specific qualifications |
| Scope of the education/qualification exception under OPRA | Disclose educational qualifications relevant to employment | Only specific required qualifications may be disclosed | Ambiguity requires remand to determine applicability with adequate record |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (OPRA purpose and broad access with exemptions described)
- Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ., 198 N.J. 274 (2009) (OPRA right to access balanced by exemptions; confidentiality limits apply)
- State v. Long, 119 N.J. 439 (1990) (discovery limits in criminal proceedings; relevance/overbreadth factors)
- Hammock ex rel. Hammock v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 142 N.J. 356 (1995) (confidentiality orders governing disclosure standards)
- N. Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Bergen Cnty. Prosecutor's Office, 405 N.J. Super. 386 (App.Div. 2009) (records relating to outside employment of law enforcement personnel; privacy)