Mark Lagerkvist v. Office of the Governor of the State, 128 A.3d 711

Background

Plaintiff Mark Lagerkvist, a journalist, filed an OPRA request (Jan. 15, 2014) seeking all records of out-of-state travel from 2012 to present by Governor Christie and senior staff for third-party funded events, including payment documentation, programs, itineraries, emails, vouchers, and receipts.
Records custodian Javier Diaz (Office of the Governor) obtained extensions and then issued a written denial stating the request was "unclear" and quoting precedents that OPRA requests must identify documents with reasonable specificity.
Lagerkvist emailed a clarification asserting the request was specific (time period, subject officials, and statutory record types) and asked Diaz to identify any technical deficiency; Diaz did not respond (statutory silence deemed denial under OPRA).
Lagerkvist filed a summary action to compel production; the Law Division dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding the request required the custodian to perform extensive research and compilation beyond OPRA's scope.
The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the custodian’s initial denial satisfied OPRA’s requirement to indicate the specific basis for denial and that the request improperly required the custodian to research and compile information rather than identify existing records.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether custodian's written denial met OPRA's requirement to "indicate the specific basis" for denial	Lagerkvist: denial burden rests on custodian and must be specific enough to allow requester to modify and obtain records	Diaz: denial referencing lack of specificity/overbroad request and relevant precedent satisfied statutory requirement	Held: Custodian satisfied N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g); use of "unclear" plus cited cases adequately explained basis for denial
Whether custodian’s silence to a follow-up clarification request violated OPRA	Lagerkvist: custodian should have explained deficiencies and help reform request	Diaz: second submission was substantively identical; statutory silence is deemed denial and no additional response required	Held: Silence after an adequate initial denial is statutorily deemed a denial and was proper here
Whether OPRA requires custodian to conduct research/compile records across years and personnel to identify responsive documents	Lagerkvist: his request identified time frame and subjects and thus sought existing records	Diaz: request required sifting, correlating, and compiling data—an impermissible research function	Held: Request exceeded OPRA’s scope; OPRA does not obligate custodians to perform research or compile data
Whether custodian must attempt to "reach a reasonable solution" when denying for reasons other than substantial disruption	Lagerkvist: custodian should help craft a workable request even when not claiming operational disruption	Diaz: statutory duty to seek accommodation applies when compliance would substantially disrupt operations, not whenever a request is unclear	Held: No expansion of the statutory duty; accommodation requirement applies only where agency claims substantial disruption

Key Cases Cited

Gannett New Jersey Partners, L.P. v. County of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div.) (OPRA requires requesters to specifically describe documents sought)
Bent v. Township of Stafford Police Department, 381 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div.) (proper OPRA request must identify records with reasonable clarity)
MAG Entm't, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div.) (OPRA is not a research tool forcing agencies to compile or correlate information)
American Civil Liberties Union of N.J. v. N.J. Div. of Criminal Justice, 435 N.J. Super. 533 (App. Div.) (custodian’s role cannot be expanded beyond statutory duties)
Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (statute fosters cooperation; accommodation required where request would substantially disrupt agency)
Burke v. Brandes, 429 N.J. Super. 169 (App. Div.) (contrast between narrow routine searches and broad research demands)
K.L. v. Evesham Twp. Bd. of Educ., 423 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div.) (appellate review of OPRA applicability is de novo)