Custodians often receive OPRA requests that do not properly ask for identifiable records, and instead require research to find responsive records. A common example of this problem is a request that seeks all information about a broad topic. As shown in this recent trial court opinion, this type of request is invalid.

The request, made to Lakewood Township, sought

Any proposal, request, inquiry or application, formal or informal, from any entity or individual  to acquire, swap, lease, exchange or engage in any other transaction related to any land contained within or directly adjoining, the Crystal Lake Preserve, and any communications…concerning same, since January 1, 2013.

The custodian denied the request on the ground that it sought “information and research.” She encouraged the requestor to refine the request and be more specific about what it was looking for. The requestor responded by filing suit.

Judge Grasso determined that the request was invalid for failing to identify records with specificity. He held that the request’s broad language, which covered any individual or entity and applied to any type of communication regarding any type of transaction related to land in or adjoining the Preserve, was an improper open-ended demand that required analyzing all Township records.

The judge made the salient point that requests like the one at issue here, “which are fashioned more like an interrogatory, are usually problematic [under OPRA] due to their lack of specificity….” Unfortunately, requestors continue to make such “interrogatory” requests, even though they are invalid under OPRA.