Inspired by the countless lists that have been published recently of the past decade’s best books, movies, TV shows, etc., here’s my list of the most important OPRA opinions issued over the decade.

1. North Jersey Media Group v. Lyndhurst Tp. (Supreme Court)–this landmark opinion governs access to virtually all law enforcement records and establishes how to apply the exemptions for criminal investigatory records and investigations in progress.

2. Paff v. Galloway Tp. (Supreme Court)–resolved an issue that comes up frequently, holding that OPRA requires public bodies to produce requested reports from information in electronic databases. In addition, for the first time, the Supreme Court adopted the “MAG rule” of the Appellate Division, confirming that OPRA requests requiring research and analysis are invalid.

3. Kovalcik v. Somerset Prosecutor’s Office (Supreme Court)–this opinion established two critically important principles: (1) OPRA’s personnel exemption is construed in favor of protecting the confidentiality of personnel information; and (2) the fact that the requestor has the ability, in pending litigation, to obtain discovery does not affect the requestor’s ability to file an OPRA request.

4. North Jersey Media v. Governor’s Office (App. Div.)–departing from what had been the standard practice, that only the GRC could impose OPRA’s penalties, the court held that trial judges have the authority to impose fines on public officials who violate OPRA.

5. Gilleran v. Bloomfield Tp. (Supreme Court)–the Court addressed OPRA’s security exemptions for the first time since OPRA’s enactment, and held that they bar release of building surveillance videos.

6. Matter of State Firemens Ass’n (Supreme Court)–two important holdings: (1) public bodies may not file OPRA declaratory judgment actions prior to answering requests; (2) OPRA’s privacy exemption covers information about an individual’s receipt of financial assistance.

7. L.R. v. Camden (Supreme Court)–held that OPRA cannot be used to obtain access to student records.

8. North Jersey Media v. Bergen County Prosecutor (App. Div.)–upheld the validity of the “Glomar” response to OPRA requests; to protect the confidentiality of investigations, an investigating agency may respond to a request concerning an investigation by stating it neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records.

9. Scheeler v. Atlantic County Mun. JIF (App. Div.)–held that the right to request records under OPRA is not limited to citizens or residents of New Jersey.

10. Ciesla v. Dept. of Health and Libertarians for Transparent Govt. v. GRC (both App. Div.)–these two appellate opinions make clear that all draft documents are entirely exempt.

Trial judges have the ability to issue injunctive relief against requestors who file an unreasonable number of requests. See this post for an example. However, there’s no precedential appellate opinion, under OPRA, that confirms this principle.

The appeal in Teaneck v. Jones appeared to be the case that might generate such an opinion. It involved a requestor who submitted an extraordinarily large number of requests to Teaneck in a short time frame, in an obvious effort to harass the township. Despite this, the trial judge rejected Teaneck’s application for an injunction that would excuse it from answering Jones’ requests.

Teaneck appealed, but the Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion issued today, declined to address the injunction issue because it was moot. The opinion indicates that after the trial judge’s ruling, the requestor and Teaneck worked out a resolution, and the Township answered a number of Jones’ requests. As a result, the appellate court said it could grant no effective relief by deciding whether an injunction should have been issued.