STEVEN WRONKO v. TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-5127-15T2

STEVEN WRONKO,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON and
ANN MARIE EDEN, RMC, in her
capacity as City Clerk and
Custodian of Records for the
Township of Jackson,

     Defendants-Respondents.
_________________________________

              Argued November 28, 2017 – Decided December 12, 2017

              Before Judges Fasciale, Sumners and Moynihan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-0679-
              16.

              CJ Griffin argued the cause for appellant
              (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, PC, attorneys;
              CJ Griffin, of counsel and on the brief).

              Robin La Bue argued the cause for respondent
              (Gilmore & Monahan, PC, attorneys; Robin La
              Bue, on the brief).

              Jeanne LoCicero argued the cause for amicus
              curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New
              Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New
              Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Edward L.
              Barocas, Iris Bromberg, and Jeanne LoCicero,
              on the brief).

PER CURIAM

       Plaintiff appeals from a June 22, 2016 order dismissing the

complaint and rejecting plaintiff's contention that defendants

violated the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), 
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to

-13.     Plaintiff maintains, as does the American Civil Liberties

Union, that his request for attorney invoices and settlement

agreements is the type envisioned pursuant to OPRA.               We agree and

reverse.

       Plaintiff requested "[c]opies of all attorney invoices for

Jackson Township from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015,"

and "[c]opies of all litigation settlement agreements from January

1,     2010    through   December   19,   2015   for    Holmdel    Township."1

Defendant Township of Jackson denied the request because plaintiff

did not identify a specific case or matter.            The judge agreed with

defendant and dismissed the complaint.

       On appeal, plaintiff argues his request was valid pursuant

to Burnett v. County of Gloucester, 
415 N.J. Super. 506 (App. Div.

2010).        Plaintiff maintains that his request was sufficiently

clear and not overly broad.          Plaintiff contends that the judge



1
     Plaintiff later corrected his request to identify Jackson
Township, not Holmdel Township.

                                      2                               A-5127-15T2
erred by concluding the request might result in production of a

large amount of documents.          We agree with plaintiff in every

respect.

     Our review of "a trial judge's legal conclusions concerning

access to public records under OPRA [is] de novo."         Paff v. Ocean

Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 
446 N.J. Super. 163, 175 (App. Div.),

certif. granted, 
228 N.J. 403 (2016). "We will not disturb factual

findings as long as they are supported by adequate, substantial,

and credible evidence."       Id. at 175-76.       "We apply the same

standard of review to the court's legal conclusions with respect

to whether access to public records is appropriate under the

common-law right of access."    Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP v. N.J.

Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, 
421 N.J. Super. 489, 497 (App. Div.

2011).

     "Any analysis of OPRA must begin with the recognition that

the Legislature created OPRA intending to make government records

'readily   accessible'   to   the    state's   citizens   'with   certain

exceptions[] for the protection of the public interest.'" Gilleran

v. Bloomfield, 
227 N.J. 159, 170 (2016) (alteration in original)

(quoting 
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1); see also Mason v. City of Hoboken, 
196 N.J. 51, 65 (2008).   To effectuate that purpose, OPRA establishes

"a comprehensive framework for access to public records."           Mason,

supra, 
196 N.J. at 57.   OPRA requires, among other things, prompt

                                     3                            A-5127-15T2
disclosure   of   records   and   provides   "different    procedures    to

challenge [a custodian's] decision[] denying access."          Ibid.

     In assessing the sufficiency of the agency's proofs submitted

in support of its claim for nondisclosure, "a court must be guided

by the overarching public policy in favor of a citizen's right of

access."   Courier News v. Hunterdon Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 
358 N.J. Super. 373, 383 (App. Div. 2003) (citing 
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1).

Absent the necessary proofs, "a citizen's right of access is

unfettered." Ibid. If it is determined access has been improperly

denied, the access sought shall be granted.       
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.

     OPRA does not "'authorize a party to make a blanket request

for every document' a public agency has on file.          Rather, a party

requesting access to a public record under OPRA must specifically

describe the document sought."       Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police

Dep't, Custodian of Records, 
381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App. Div.

2005) (quoting Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cty. of Middlesex, 
379 N.J. Super. 205, 212 (App. Div. 2005)).       "While OPRA provides [a]

. . . means of access to government documents not otherwise

exempted from its reach, it is not intended as a research tool

litigants may use to force government officials to identify and

siphon useful information."       MAG Entm't, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic

Beverage Control, 
375 N.J. Super. 534, 546 (App. Div. 2005).



                                    4                            A-5127-15T2
     Blanket requests for unspecified documents are not proper

under OPRA.   The request "must identify with reasonable clarity

those documents that are desired, and a party cannot satisfy this

requirement by simply requesting all of an agency's documents."

Bent, supra, 
381 N.J. Super. at 37.            "OPRA does not authorize

unbridled searches of an agency's property," ibid., that "would

substantially disrupt agency operations," 
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).

"[T]he custodian may deny [a request] after attempting to reach a

reasonable solution . . . that accommodates the interests of the

requestor and the agency."          Ibid.    A proper OPRA request must

state "a specific subject matter that [is] clearly and reasonably

described with sufficient identifying information."                 Burke v.

Brandes, 
429 N.J. Super. 169, 176 (App. Div. 2012).

     To limit a blanket request, a requestor should identify the

subject matter of the type of document sought.         We have determined

requests that identified a specific subject matter with sufficient

identifying   information    were    not    overly   broad   even   where     a

custodian was required to search and locate records according to

a specific topic area.      For example, OPRA permitted a request for

"[a]ny and all settlements, releases or similar documents entered

into, approved or accepted from [January 1, 2006] to present."

Burnett, supra, 
415 N.J. Super. at 508 (first alteration in

original).    The fact that the plaintiff did not "specify[] the

                                      5                              A-5127-15T2
matters to which the settlements pertained did not render his

request     a     general    request    for     information      obtained    through

research, rather than a request for a specific record."                         Id. at

513-14.      We have also permitted an OPRA request for documents

relating to E-ZPass benefits provided to Port Authority retirees

because it "was confined to a specific subject matter that was

clearly     and    reasonably    described       with    sufficient     identifying

information."       Burke,    supra,     429    N.J.    Super.    at   176-78.       We

concluded that the request for the specific documents "was limited

to    particularized         identifiable       government       records,    namely,

correspondence        with    another     government         entity,   rather     than

information generally."          Id. at 176.        These permissible requests

did   not    require    a    custodian     to    exercise      discretion,      survey

employees, or conduct research; rather, the responsive records

were self-evident.          See id. at 177.

      With      these   guiding        principles       in    mind,    we   conclude

plaintiff's OPRA request complied with the statute and governing

case law.

      We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.        We do not retain jurisdiction.




                                          6                                  A-5127-15T2