Sussex Commons Associates, LLC v. Rutgers, 210 N.J. 531

OPRA question: whether records of Rutgers public law school clinics are subject to OPRA.
RELC represents private clients opposing Sussex Commons’ mall project; Sussex sought OPRA records from RELC.
Trial court held RELC exempt; Appellate Division reversed, predicting OPRA would apply to clinic records.
Court discusses Rutgers’ hybrid public/private status and the pedagogical purpose of clinics.
Court distinguishes funding records (OPRA potentially applicable) from case-related clinic records (not subject to OPRA).
Concluding that records related to cases at public law school clinics are not subject to OPRA; common law access does not extend to such records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
OPRA applicability to clinic case records	RELC should be outside OPRA as teaching clinics do not perform government functions.	Rutgers and the Clinic are subject to OPRA as a public agency.	OPRA does not apply to clinic case records.
Effect of Rutgers’ public status on OPRA	OPRA should not sweep teaching clinics due to academic freedom and non-government functions.	Rutgers, including the Law School, is a public entity subject to OPRA.	OPRA applies to Rutgers generally but not to clinic case files.
Common law right of access to clinic records	Common law right may compel disclosure of clinic records.	Common law access does not extend to clinic case-related records.	Common law right of access does not extend to case-related clinic records.

MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App.Div. 2005) (OPRA context for record creation and access)
In re Executive Commission on Ethical Standards, 116 N.J. 216 (1990) (clinical professors not State employees; Rutgers’ autonomy and academic freedom)
Educ. Law Ctr. v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., 198 N.J. 274 (2009) (deliberative-process and pedagogical records exemptions under OPRA)
Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36 (1997) (OPRA application to Rutgers context prior precedent)