Newark Morning v. Sports & Expo.
31 A.3d 623
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- OPRA request sought IZOD Center contracts from 2007 onward; 98 contracts released with redacted financial terms.
- Defendant claimed exemptions: trade secrets and proprietary financial information, and information would cause a competitive disadvantage.
- Trial court conducted in camera review and found exemptions not applicable; public interest in disclosure outweighed confidentiality.
- Promoter and industry witnesses testified confidentiality existed, but many contracts showed no explicit confidentiality provisions and terms were commonly known.
- Plaintiff sought enforcement of disclosure and attorney’s fees; defendant appealed, contending timeliness, exemptions, and discovery limits.
- The appellate court affirmed ruling requiring disclosure and upheld fee award; procedural and discovery issues were resolved in favor of disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OPRA exemptions apply to withhold contract terms | Disclosures are required; no compelling exemptions. | Redactions protect competitive advantage and trade secrets. | OPRA exemptions not met; disclosure required. |
| Whether common-law right of access can override confidentiality | Common-law access supports disclosure. | Confidentiality should trump disclosure. | Common-law right supports disclosure of contracts; confidentiality limited. |
| Whether action was timely under OPRA 45-day limit | Complaint timely due to tolling for settlement efforts. | Action time-barred. | Timeliness tried; tolling upheld; action not time-barred. |
| Whether discovery rulings were proper to protect motives and scope | Discovery appropriately limited; aims to show public interest. | Discovery should be broader to probe motives. | Discovery rulings affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether attorney’s fees to plaintiff as prevailing party were proper | Prevailing party status; fee should be awarded. | Fees not warranted. | Attorney’s fees award upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008) (OPRA limitations and tolling in public-access actions)
- Burnett v. Bergen Cnty., 198 N.J. 408 (2009) (public access rights; OPRA read in favor of disclosure)
- Tractenberg v. Twp. of West Orange, 416 N.J. Super. 354 (App.Div. 2010) (limits on exemptions; confidentiality not always warranted)
- Kovalcik v. Somerset Cnty. Prosecutor's Office, 206 N.J. 581 (2011) (OPRA's broad public-access purpose with exemptions constrained)
- Rousseau v. Communications Workers of Am., 417 N.J. Super. 341 (App.Div. 2010) (commercial/proprietary information and trade secrets under OPRA)