Monthly Archives: December 2022

2022 OPRA Case Law Review

Leave a reply

Here’s a look back at the most important OPRA opinions issued by the courts this year.

The Supreme Court issued two OPRA opinions in 2022, both in March–Libertarians for Transp. Govt. v. Cumberland County and Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor. In Libertarians, the Court held that an internal settlement agreement between a public employer and its employee is an exempt personnel record, but the portion of the agreement that contains the reason for the employee’s separation from employment must be disclosed. In Rivera, the Court reaffirmed that records of police internal affairs investigations are exempt under OPRA, but may be disclosable under the common law ability to access government records.

See also this post for additional analysis of how these two opinions have a significant impact on OPRA law and practice.

The Appellate Division also issued some major OPRA opinions, addressing issues of first impression:

–Underwood Properties v. Hackensack dealt with a common problem in OPRA matters–an attorney, in the course of representing a client, submits an OPRA request under his own name, rather than the client’s name, and then the client files a complaint over the denial of the request. The court held that the client has standing to file the OPRA litigation, despite not being identified as the requestor in the OPRA request.

Underwood is also one of the few published opinions that addresses the calculation of a requestor’s attorney fee award.

–C.E. v. Elizabeth Public Sch. Dist. held that settlements of OAL cases involving IDEA special education challenges must be disclosed under OPRA.

–ACLU v. CPANJ held that the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey is not an agency subject to OPRA.

Appellate Division: The County Prosecutors Association of NJ is Not an Agency Subject to OPRA

Leave a reply

The Appellate Division today issued a precedential OPRA opinion. Deciding an issue of first impression, the court held that the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (CPANJ) is not a public agency under OPRA. ACLU v. CPANJ.

CPANJ is a 501(c) nonprofit made up of the 21 county prosecutors. The organization characterizes its goal as “the promotion of the orderly administration of criminal justice within the State and the fair and effective enforcement of the constitution and laws of this State through the cooperation of all law enforcement agencies….” In its opinion, the Appellate Division describes CPANJ as a means by which the county prosecutors fulfill their obligation to aid the Attorney General, specifically by “participat[ing] as stakeholders in the drafting of directives and guidelines to be issued by the Attorney General, which
thereafter are binding on the prosecutors.”

The ACLU submitted OPRA requests for various records to CPANJ. The court held that CPANJ correctly denied the requests on the basis that it is not a public agency under OPRA. The crux of this holding is that CPANJ is not (per OPRA’s definition of a covered public body) an “instrumentality” created by “political subdivisions.” The court said that CPANJ was formed by prosecutors, not counties, and prosecutors are not political subdivisions. And CPANJ itself has no statutory powers. The Appellate Division concluded: “[W]hile CPANJ has a role in formulating criminal justice policy, it does so as a private entity that has no governmental authority.”

For these reasons, the court also held that records of CPANJ are not subject to the common law right of access to government records.

A puzzling aspect of this case, not addressed by the court, is why the ACLU even bothered to pursue this litigation. Since the ability already exists, under OPRA and the common law, for requestors to obtain information about prosecutors’ actions, there seems to be no need for public access to CPANJ records.

According to the court’s opinion, the ACLU sought records from CPANJ to investigate how prosecutors and their staff members “coordinate their efforts on criminal justice policy;” determine how these efforts are funded; and “monitor prosecutorial transparency and accountability….” But this is precisely the type of information that is obtainable from agencies that are subject to OPRA, such as prosecutors offices and the Attorney General’s Office.