MUNOZ TRUCKING CORP. VS. KNIGHTBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY (L-7594-12, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0830-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- At a January 15, 2014 Swedesboro‑Woolwich Board meeting the Board went into executive session to discuss the superintendent’s contract and then accepted his resignation.
- Dean Smith (supporter of the superintendent) requested the executive‑session minutes under OPRA.
- The Board produced a two‑page redacted minutes document and a privilege/redaction log; substantial portions were blacked out and justified as personnel, deliberative process, attorney‑client, and work‑product exemptions.
- Smith sued in the Law Division seeking the unredacted minutes; the Board submitted both redacted and unredacted versions for in‑camera review.
- The trial judge reviewed the documents in camera, upheld the redactions as covered by personnel, deliberative process, and attorney‑client privileges, and dismissed Smith’s complaint.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that OPRA review of closed‑session records is informed by OPMA and that the Board’s redactions were permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the redacted executive‑session minutes are public under OPRA | Smith: Minutes are not "personnel records" and should be disclosed; redactions excessive | Board: Minutes concern personnel/contract negotiations and discussions with counsel, fitting OPMA/OPRA exemptions | Affirmed: Redactions valid under personnel exception and other privileges |
| Whether OPMA grounds for closing session can justify OPRA nondisclosure | Smith: Board conflates OPMA reasons with OPRA exemptions improperly | Board: OPMA and OPRA "dovetail"; lawful executive session subjects inform OPRA exemptions | Held: OPMA informs OPRA; closed‑session topics may be exempt from disclosure |
| Whether deliberative process and attorney‑client/work‑product protections apply to meeting minutes | Smith: Short minute notations are not deliberative or privileged; no work product in minutes | Board: Minutes reflect give‑and‑take and counsel input; therefore deliberative and privileged | Held: Court finds minutes contain deliberative discussion and attorney input; protections apply |
| Whether passage of time or redaction method required disclosure | Smith: After 14 months, material should be public; redaction method improper | Board: No authority to alter exemption application based on time; redactions accompanied by log | Held: Passage of time did not overcome exemptions; redaction with log was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Shea v. West Milford Bd. of Educ., 391 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2007) (OPRA analysis of closed‑session documents must be informed by OPMA)
- Asbury Park Press v. Cnty. of Monmouth, 406 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2009) (procedures for in‑camera review and plenary appellate review of withheld records)
- McGee v. Twp. of E. Amwell, 416 N.J. Super. 602 (App. Div. 2010) (personnel records exemption and deliberative process analysis)
- O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 218 N.J. 168 (2014) (attorney‑client privilege and public‑records interplay)
- Gannett N.J. Partners v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 2005) (deliberative‑process exemption principles)
- In re Liquidation of Integrity Ins. Co., 165 N.J. 75 (2000) (standards for deliberative process exemption)