For the second day in a row, the Appellate Division has issued a published opinion on OPRA issues. Matter of the NJ Firemen’s Ass’n Obligation to Provide Relief Applications. However, unlike yesterday’s important opinion in Lagerkvist v. Office of the Governor, today’s case will not have a significant impact on most public agencies and custodians.

In Firemens’s Ass’n, the court held that a custodian may not file a declaratory judgment action against a requestor concerning whether records may be withheld. The court determined that “the Legislature did not intend for records custodians to bring actions against record requestors to enforce their asserted right to withhold records.”

With regard to the specific records at issue in the case–showing the name of a particular applicant for a financial relief assistance award and the amount awarded–the court held that they should be released under both OPRA and the common law. The court applied the balancing test required by OPRA’s privacy provision, and concluded that the requestor’s interest in disclosure of the information about one specific applicant outweighed the applicant’s privacy interests.

The court’s determination that these records should be released is unlikely to affect other cases involving privacy arguments. The decision is limited to the specific applicant’s situation, and the court emphasized that it was not requiring disclosure of any of that person’s financial information. This fact-specific holding does not seem applicable to other records.

Similarly, I see the ruling on declaratory judgment actions as having little future impact. Public agencies should have no need to bring a declaratory judgment action under OPRA–if a requestor files a court or GRC complaint, the agency will have a full opportunity to present its arguments as to why it denied the request. In short, the inability to file declaratory judgment suits in OPRA matters will have no practical effect on public bodies.