: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Similar documents
CIVIL ACTION. Defendant Jeff Carter, by and through his counsel Law Offices of Walter M. Luers, by

Plaintiff Frank Ponce, by and through his undersigned counsel Law Offices of

OPRA EXEMPTIONS (Exceptions are noted in italics)

FINAL DECISION. November 14, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. March 31, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant OCPO shall have ten days thereafter to submit a written response to plaintiff's certification; and

TOWNSHIP OF GALLOWAY OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST FORM

FINAL DECISION. March 28, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMPLAINT

FINAL DECISION. April 25, 2012 Government Records Council Meeting

Counsel for Plaintiff

FINAL DECISION. December 20, 2013 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. December 18, 2018 Government Records Council Meeting

Civil Action: County of Burlington, and State of New Jersey, and Plaintiff Pro Se Frederick John LaVergne, residing at

Public Records Act Requests and Pending Litigation

FINAL DECISION. February 26, 2013 Government Records Council Meeting

State of New Jersey GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL 101 SOUTH BROAD STREET PO BOX 819 TRENTON, NJ

Township of Middle 33 MECHANIC STREET CAPE MAY COURT HOUSE, NJ 08210

Plaintiff Wayne Kubs, by way of Verified Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative

CHAPTER 12. NEGOTIATIONS AND IMPASSE PROCEDURES; MEDIATION, FACT-FINDING, SUPER CONCILIATION, AND GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION i

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Counsel for Plaintiff

FINAL DECISION. May 24, 2011 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. September 29, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. CIVIL ACTION. M. Luers, LLC, by way of verified complaint against the Defendant Andrew C. Carey in his

Appendix XXIX-B. Note: Adopted July 27, 2015 to be effective September 1, 2015.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

Citizen Advocacy Center Guide to Illinois Freedom of Information Act

Nonprofit Corporation, CJ Griffin, Esq. appearing, seeking relief by way of summary action

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY Telephone:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FINAL DECISION. June 30, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FINAL DECISION. November 30, 2010 Government Records Council Meeting

Case 2:17-cv JLL-JAD Document 1 Filed 08/16/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1 : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION

State of New Jersey GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL 101 SOUTH BROAD STREET PO BOX 819 TRENTON, NJ

DOCKET NO.: HEARING DATE : SIR: at nine o clock in the forenoon or as

RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES:

Making a Request for records from the Town of Drakes Branch

GLOUCESTER, SALEM, CUMBERLAND COUNTIES MUNICIPAL JOINT INSURANCE FUND (TRICOJIF) Annual Retreat: July 26 th & 27 th, 2018

10/30/2017 7:04 PM 17CV47399 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PARTIES

THE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL S PARTIAL OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR CHANGING AN ADULT S NAME

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND EMERGENCY RETURN OF CHILD PACKET

2015 Bylaws BYLAWS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CATERING AND EVENTS

Updates: Open Public Records Act (OPRA) N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq.

RESOLUTION NO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC LAW 2005, CHAPTER 51, N.J.S.A. 19:44A (FORMERLY EXECUTIVE ORDER 134) AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 117 (2008)

State of New Jersey GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL 101 SOUTH BROAD STREET PO BOX 819 TRENTON, NJ

Agenda Item 3: Draft Bylaws VIRGINIA RESEARCH INVESTMENT COMMITTEE. VRIC Bylaws. Effective: Adopted:

Rights & Responsibilities:

Virginia Freedom of Information Act ( VFOIA ) Complaint Template

JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures

Supersedes the following Resolutions & Policies:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS For Completing the Two-Year Vendor Certification and Disclosure of Political Contributions Form

Date Submitted: June 16, 2009 Date Decided: July 10, PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No VCP

New Jersey Libertarian Party

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN COUNTY LAW DIVISION DOCKET NO.: CIVIL ACTION THEODORE WELLS, EDWIN E. WOOD, III, JAMES KEHOE,

FINAL DECISION. January 28, 2014 Government Records Council Meeting

New Jersey School Boards Association

Rights & Responsibilities: The Rights of Requesters and the Responsibilities of Town of Victoria Under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PH: F: Attorneys for Plaintiff S.P., a fictitious name

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS For Completing the Two-Year Vendor Certification and Disclosure of Political Contributions Form

California Public Records Act. Marco A. Gonzalez March 18, 2015

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/10/18 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883

Plaintiff. v. CRIMINAL ACTION

Plaintiffs, Defendant. and Joseph Uras Monuments, Inc., complaining of Defendant above, states as follows: PARTIES

Case 1:14-cv APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FINAL DECISION. July 28, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. October 28, 2014 Government Records Council Meeting

You have the right to request to inspect or receive copies of public records, or both.

In the Matter of Prosecutor s Agents, Gloucester County Prosecutor s Office DOP Docket No (Merit System Board, decided July 14, 2004)

Rights & Responsibilities: The Rights of Requesters and the Responsibilities of Richmond County under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act

FINAL DECISION. December 20, 2013 Government Records Council Meeting

Case , Document 57-1, 03/29/2016, , Page1 of 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY

1. TRCP 194 created a new discovery tool entitled Requests for Disclosure.

FEB Feb. 19, :36PM Judge Jacobson Chamber No, 3137 JOHN PAFF, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MERCER COUNTY.

Case 3:12-cv M Document 6 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 18

RULE PROPOSALS INTERESTED PERSONS

Case 1:14-cv KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:08-cv GLF-NMK Document 78 Filed 01/20/10 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDLAND

Note: New caption for Rule 1:38 adopted July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009.

MATTHEW S. ROGERS ATTORNEY AT LAW 123 PROSPECT STREET RIDGEWOOD, NJ October 29, 2009

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/08/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ALABAMA BOARD OF NURSING ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 610-X-1 ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION TABLE OF CONTENTS. Implementation Of Nurse Practice Act

Bidders/vendors are required to comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:5-31 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 17:27 as set forth in EXHIBIT B.

RULE L-1143 COMMENCEMENT OF CONSUMER CREDIT OR MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTLER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE &C Page 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS

State of New Jersey GOVERNMENT RECORDS COUNCIL 101 SOUTH BROAD STREET PO BOX 819 TRENTON, NJ

FINAL DECISION. April 26, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting

Transcription:

Michael L. Pisauro, Jr. Frascella & Pisauro, LLC. 100 Canal Pointe Blvd. Suite 209 Princeton, NJ 08540 609-919-9500 609-919-9510 (Fax) Attorney for Plaintiff : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES : LAW DIVISION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL : MERCER COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY : : : DOCKET NO.: Plaintiff, : : Civil Action v. : : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF : VERIFIED COMPLAINT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, : : Defendant. : : The Plaintiff, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, by way of Verified Complaint against the Defendant, alleges as follows: FIRST COUNT 1. Plaintiff Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility ( PEER ) is a non-profit organization with tax-exempt status dedicated to research and public education concerning the activities and operations of federal and state governments. The plaintiff files this action in part pursuant to the Open Public Records Act ( OPRA ), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. 2. Defendant, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP ), is a public agency of the State of New Jersey and is a principal department of the Executive Branch

of State Government as defined by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1, and is charged with the duty to provide public access to documents in its possession consistent with the requirements of OPRA. 3. On August 8, 2009, Plaintiff submitted an OPRA request (# 84497) to the DEP to conduct a file review of records related to the nomination of board members to the agency s Science Advisory Board ( SAB ). Specifically, Plaintiff sought (1) any and all communication to the Department from external third parties (private and public) regarding recommendations of candidates to serve on the SAB (including all DEP replies to and internal distribution of this information), (2) any and all communication to the Department regarding the SAB (including all DEP replies to and internal distribution of this information), (3) any and all written materials regarding the review and selection of SAB members, including the DEP s policies and procedures governing the SAB candidate selection criteria and review process, (4) all emails, correspondences, meeting notes, etc - internal and external - regarding items #2 and #3 above, and (5) an OPRA privilege log of any documents excluded from above request and basis for exclusion. A copy of this OPRA request is attached as Exhibit A. 4. The DEP responded to the OPRA request by electronic form letter dated September 9, 2009, denying Plaintiff s request for nearly all of the documents sought, citing an executive order relating to job applicants. One document responsive to the request, the SAB s Administrative Order, was made available on the DEP website. 5. In response to the first category of requested documents, the DEP stated that responsive records were located but that they were analogous to the selection of applications for employment positions with NJDEP, and therefore denied them pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9 and Governor McGreevey's Executive Order 26: 3 (August 13, 2002). 2

6. With regard to the second category, the DEP failed to produce any documents concerning communications to the Department about the SAB. The DEP further failed to claim that they did not have responsive documents, or that they were exempt for any reason. 7. In response to the third category, the DEP stated that some responsive records have been identified and are available for direct access on the NJDEP s web address. The sole responsive document located on the Department s website is the SAB s Administrative Order, which briefly outlines the policies and procedures governing the SAB candidate selection criteria. The DEP failed to produce any other responsive documents, or claim that such documents did not exist or were exempt. 8. Regarding the fourth category, the DEP failed entirely to produce the requested communications, and further failed to justify a basis for refusing to disclose them. 9. Lastly, regarding the fifth category, the DEP failed to provide an OPRA privilege log of excluded documents as requested. 10. Plaintiff asserts that the DEP is required to provide the requested documents and records pursuant to OPRA because none of the documents qualify for exemption under Executive Order 26: 3. Moreover, the DEP failed to respond to the requests contained in categories 2, 3, 4, and 5, either through production of the documents or through assertion of a valid exemption. 11. All of the requested documents and records are subject to the disclosure requirements of OPRA. 12. The DEP s refusal to make available for inspection and copy the requested documents and records constitutes a violation of OPRA. 3

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks the entry of final judgment as follows: A. Enter an Order declaring that the DEP has wrongfully withheld the requested agency records and directing the DEP to provide access to true and exact copies of all the requested documents and records to the plaintiffs; B. Award the Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in this action, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6; C. Maintain jurisdiction over this action until the DEP comes into compliance with OPRA and every order of this Court; D. Order the DEP to determine and implement standard guidelines for OPRA requests consistent with the findings of this Court; and E. Grant such other and additional and further relief to the plaintiff as the Court deems just and proper. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Michael L. Pisauro, Jr. is hereby designated to try this case on behalf of plaintiff. 4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:5-1 Pursuant to the provision of Rule 4:5-1, the undersigned attorney certifies that the matter is not the subject of any other pending action in any court or arbitration proceeding. Michael L. Pisauro, Jr. Frascella & Pisauro, LLC. 100 Canal Pointe Blvd. Suite 209 Princeton, NJ 08540 609-919-9500 609-919-9510 (Fax) Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: September 28, 2009 5

VERIFICATION Jeff Ruch, Executive Director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, of full age, hereby verifies the following: I am the Plaintiff in this matter. I have reviewed the allegations contained in the foregoing Verified Complaint and the allegations are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. DATED Jeff Ruch, Executive Director Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 6

September 28, 2009 Honorable <JUDGES NAME> Mercer County Courthouse 209 South Broad Street Trenton, NJ 08650-0068 RE: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Dear Judge <NAME>: Please accept this letter brief in support of the Plaintiff s application for an Order to Show Cause. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Plaintiff relies upon the facts set forth in the Verified Complaint. On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility ( PEER or Plaintiff ), submitted an Open Public Records Act ( OPRA ) request (Exhibit A) to the Defendant, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP or Defendant ), seeking documents and records related to the selection of members of the Department s Science Advisory Board ( SAB ), an impartial committee dedicated to reviewing the science and technical data relied upon by the Department. On September 9, 2009, Defendant responded to the Plaintiff by electronic form letter. The Defendant denied Item 1 of Plaintiff s request citing, as an analogy, an Executive Order which exempts employment applications, resumes, and related documents from public disclosure. The documents requested under Item 1 are not covered by the Executive Order 26: 3 7

because the potential members of the SAB are not employees of the Department. Moreover, Plaintiff s request asked for communications regarding recommendations and nominations of candidates, rather than resumes and applications, making the Executive Order invoked by the Defendant further irrelevant to the request. In addition, Defendant gave no justification at all for failing to make available Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the request. Rather, Defendant pointed to a single responsive document to Item 3 available on their website, and disregarded the remainder of the request. As such, the Defendant has violated OPRA and the common law right to know doctrine. LEGAL DISCUSSION The plaintiff s request for public documents and records was made pursuant to the Open Public Records Act ( OPRA ) NJSA 47: 1A-1 et seq. These proceedings are to be conducted in a summary or expedited manner. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. If satisfied with the sufficiency of the application, the Court shall order the defendant to show cause why final judgment should not be entered for the relief sought. R. 4:67-2(a). It is the agency s burden to prove that the refusal to allow access to the requested documents was authorized by law. NJSA 47:1A-6. In reviewing whether DEP has wrongfully withheld documents, the analysis must be performed in light of OPRA s command any restriction on the right to documents be construed liberally in favor of public disclosure. NJSA 47:1A-1. Defendant has wrongfully withheld documents and information related to the appointment of SAB members first by citing an Executive Order which applies solely to records related to applications for employment and further for failing to respond to items 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the request. DEP s violated OPRA in refusing to produce all of the Requested Documents. 8

A. OPRA Request Item 1 Defendant has wrongfully withheld documents asked for under Item 1 of Plaintiff s OPRA request. In its request, Plaintiff had sought: (1) any and all communications to the Department from external third parties (private and public) regarding recommendations of candidates to serve on the SAB (including all DEP replies to and internal distribution of this information). Through this request, Plaintiff sought nominations, recommendations, and other communications from third parties related to the selection and consideration of candidates for the SAB. In its September 9, 2009, letter, Defendant erroneously invoked Governor McGreevey s Executive Order 26:3 in order to withhold from Plaintiff the documents requested in Item 1. 1. Governor McGreevey s Executive Order 26:3 applies only to information contained within applications for employment with public agencies. New Jersey law upholds [OPRA] exemptions contained in Executive Orders. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9. Any exemption must be narrowly construed to effect the strict mandate of OPRA that documents should be available for public inspection. NJSA 47:1A-1. On August 13, 2002, Governor McGreevey issued the following Executive Order: No public agency shall disclose the resumes, applications for employment or other information concerning job applicants while a recruitment search is ongoing. The resumes of successful candidates shall be disclosed once the successful candidate is hired. The resumes of unsuccessful candidates may be disclosed after the search has been concluded and the position has been filled, but only where the unsuccessful candidate has consented to such disclosure. See Governor McGreevey Executive Order 26: 3 (August 13, 2002). The language of the order is unambiguous in that it solely applies to resumes, applications, and other employment-related information concerning job applicants. Nowhere in the language of the order does Governor 9

McGreevey refer to persons considered for non-employment positions with public agencies, such as the candidates to serve on an advisory Board. 2. Members of the Department of Environmental Protection s Science Advisory Board are not employees of the agency, and therefore Executive Order 26: 3 does not apply. The Administrative Order creating the Science Advisory Board clearly maintains that members elected to the Board are not considered employees of the Department. The Order states that [w]hereas, the Department s consideration and deliberation on the scientific and technical underpinnings of its decisions would benefit from review and advice from scientists who are not employees of the Department and do not have a conflict of interest in providing this review (Emphasis added). The Order goes on to explain that the Board shall be composed of twelve members, none of whom shall be employed by the Department (Emphasis added). The Administrative Order refers to members of the board having membership and terms, as opposed to employment and service. Furthermore, in describing the method through which board members are selected, the Administrative Order makes it clear that the process is one which invites public involvement and comment at all stages: Eligibility for appointment to the Board and any standing or ad hoc committee shall be determined based upon a public solicitation through the Office of Science. The solicitation process shall be comprehensive and shall include, but not be limited to, an announcement of the solicitation of members on the Department website, letters to the State s academic institutions and through such other means as the Office of Science deems appropriate. Admin. Order No. 2009-05 (May 28, 2009). The Department has claimed that public nominations and recommendations, as well as documents regarding the selection of Board members, are exempt from OPRA disclosure 10

because they are equivalent to employment applications. However, the Department is erroneous in this analogy and fails to cite any authority supporting the claim that non-employees should be treated like employees for purposes of withholding information under OPRA. Further the Department s reason for excluding this information seems to contradict its own Administrative Order creating the Board. It would also appear that NJSA 47:1A-10 also leads support that these records are discoverable in an OPRA request. Thus, because members of the Board are not considered employees of the Department, and because Executive Order 26: 3 applies solely to employees of public agencies, the Executive Order exemption cannot be applied to withhold documents responsive to Plaintiff s request. 3. Plaintiff s OPRA request sought communications regarding recommendations of candidates to serve on the SAB, and therefore Executive Order 26: 3 does not apply. Executive Order 26: 3 relates to resumes, applications for employment, and other information regarding job applicants. The documents sought by Plaintiff in Item 1 of its requested related to nominations and recommendations for appointment to the Board, rather than resumes and employment applications. Thus, because Plaintiff sought records related to recommendations and nominations, and because Executive Order 26: 3 applies solely to resumes and other job application forms, the order cannot be applied to withhold documents response to Plaintiff s request. B. OPRA Request Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 Defendant also failed to make available for production records responsive to Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the request. Specifically, Plaintiff had requested: (2) any and all communication to the Department regarding the SAB (including all DEP replies to and internal distribution of this 11

information), (3) any and all written materials regarding the review and selection of SAB members, including the DEP s policies and procedures governing the SAB candidate selection criteria and review process, (4) all emails, correspondences, meeting notes, etc - internal and external - regarding items #2 and #3 above, and (5) an OPRA privilege log of any documents excluded from above request and basis for exclusion. In response to Item 3, Defendant pointed to a single document available on the Department s website: an Administrative Order pertaining to candidate selection criteria and review process. Defendant failed to state that this was the only responsive document to Item 3 of the request. Furthermore, Defendant entirely disregarded Items 2, 4, and 5 of the request. Defendant failed to justify the denial of requested items or make responsive the documents available for review by Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendant did not claim that there were no responsive documents to the items in the request. Lastly, because the rationale for denial of Item 1, Executive Order 26: 3 clearly would not apply to the requests under Items 2, 3, 4, and 5, Defendant cannot claim to have invoked that exemption. CONCLUSION Defendant has wrongfully withheld records and documents under OPRA, in violation of OPRA and the common law right to know doctrine. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the entry of an Order to Show Cause, the production of the requested documents, and reasonable attorneys fees and costs. 12

Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Pisauro, Jr. Frascella & Pisauro, LLC. 100 Canal Pointe Blvd. Suite 209 Princeton, NJ 08540 609-919-9500 609-919-9510 (Fax) Attorney for Plaintiff 13