Monthly Archives: July 2018

Dealing With Requestors Who Submit An Excessive Number Of Requests

Leave a reply

Some OPRA requestors abuse the system by burying public bodies under an avalanche of requests. See this post for an example, concerning a requestor who, over two months, submitted 380 requests to Teaneck, seeking nearly every possible category of municipal information.  Despite the obviously harassing nature of this volume of requests, the trial judge declined to issue an injunction to limit this person’s requests, based on the incorrect belief that the law does not authorize judges to take such action.

An Appellate Division opinion issued today shows that trial judges do indeed have the authority to place limits on requestors who submit too many requests. O’Boyle v. DiLorenzo.

O’Boyle submitted almost 900 requests to the borough of Longport over a several month period. The limited staff of this small borough attempted to respond, but the court noted that some employees were overwhelmed by the resulting workload and quit.

The Borough filed an order to show cause to bar O’Boyle from submitting additional document requests. The trial judge ruled that he could continue to submit requests, but also ordered that the Borough was not obligated to respond to any requests within OPRA’s time limit.

O’Boyle later filed suit against the Borough and various individuals, complaining about a number of different actions taken against him. One claim involved the OPRA matter; he argued the Borough violated Equal Protection by denying him his rights under OPRA.

The trial judge dismissed all of O’Boyle’s claims, and the Appellate Division affirmed for the reasons expressed by the trial judge. The court’s opinion does not describe the trial judge’s opinion or explain its legal reasoning. Nevertheless, this appellate case is of interest, in showing that a trial judge can place restrictions on an individual who submits an abusive amount of OPRA requests.

The Extent of OPRA’s Privacy Exemption Is Not Clear, Despite Recent Supreme Court Opinions

Leave a reply

Since OPRA’s enactment, public bodies have struggled with requests that affect privacy interests. When presented with such a request, custodians must determine if there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy, and then apply a balancing test, weighing the strength of the privacy interest against the need for public disclosure of the information in question. The case law does not provide definitive guidance on handling these issues, because courts have reached differing conclusions on what information is entitled to privacy, depending on the facts of the particular case.

The two opinions issued by the Supreme Court over the past year on privacy under OPRA illustrate this problem. Last summer, in Matter of NJ State Firemen’s Assn Obligation to Provide Relief Applications  it upheld the confidentiality of a firefighter’s financial relief award, emphasizing the strong privacy interests that individuals have in their personal financial information.

In May 2018, the Court ruled that bidders at a public agency’s auction of forfeited property have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their names and home addresses, and therefore this information must be disclosed, without even applying the balancing test. Brennan v. Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office. The Court concluded that people bidding at an agency’s public auction could not reasonably expect their names and addresses to be private.

These cases, while important, have little applicability to OPRA requests that don’t involve bidders’ information or an individual’s financial status. Perhaps the Supreme Court’s upcoming opinion in Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor, which concerns the privacy interests of those shown in police videos, will provide broader guidance on the contours of OPRA’s privacy provision.