May 2 , 2024 June 6 , 2024 September 5 , 2024 October 3 , 2024 November 7 , 2024
The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine | April 2024
Continued from previous page settlement agreements . Thus , the Court found that Mr . Owoh ’ s “ original and revised clarified request never identified any government records and never clearly and reasonably described with sufficient identifying information what records he was seeking .” Instead , the Court found that the first time he mentioned plea agreements and criminal convictions was in his complaint to the GRC ( i . e . he never mentioned either document in his original OPRA request or in response to the Custodian ’ s request for clarification ). As a result , the Court adopted the position taken by the NJSACOP that the entire matter could have been resolved by Mr . Owoh simply submitting a new OPRA , rather than filing a lawsuit , making clear that “ as stated in [ NJSACOP ’ s ] amicus ’ s brief , appellant continues to have the ability to request the government records he now claims he wants .” What he does not have the right to do , stressed the Court ’ s decision , is to make general requests for information and expect a records custodian to do research for him .
TAKE AWAY FROM THE CASE
Most OPRA cases tend to turn on the facts and the actions taken by the Records Custodian . This is especially true where the Records Custodian is claiming that the request is overly broad or unclear . One of the primary reasons Maple Shade was victorious in this case is due to the steps taken by its Custodian ( which were a primary focus of the Court during the case ’ s oral argument ). In particular , prior to denying the request , the Custodian sent a letter seeking clarification on the documents being requested . When only a broad clarification was provided , rather than deny the request , the custodian attempted to provide records that appeared responsive . This ended up being critical to the Court ’ s decision , in which the Court held that upon “ receiving the request , respondent ’ s custodian asked for clarification and prepared a spreadsheet , providing the information it had ” and further holding that “ the fact that the custodian of records in this case actually performed a search and prepared a spreadsheet in an effort to respond to appellant ’ s request belies any assertion that OPRA was violated .”
While departments and records custodians are exceptionally busy , and in most cases it is easier to deny unclear requests , this case shows the importance of making attempts to work with requestors prior to outright denying requests . Thus , efforts by the custodian to seek clarification or fulfill unclear requests can become important when defending OPRA litigation . The case also clarifies the limits of what can be expected of records custodians , and a demand that a records custodian distill and summarize information from documents will not be upheld in court .
May 2 , 2024 June 6 , 2024 September 5 , 2024 October 3 , 2024 November 7 , 2024
All meetings take place at the Doubletree Hotel in Tinton Falls , NJ . Breakfast begins at 9:00 am with the meeting following at 10:00 am .
11