Judge Douglas Fasciale. Photo: Carmen Natale

A New Jersey appeals court has ordered the Township of Jackson to turn over attorney invoices and settlement agreements after finding that requests for those items were sufficiently clear and not overly broad.

The Township of Jackson denied two Open Public Records Act requests from area resident Steven Wronko for all attorney invoices from 2015 and all litigation settlement agreements from 2010 to 2015, citing his failure to seek documents from any specific case or matter. Wronko filed an OPRA suit in Superior Court, and Ocean County Assignment Judge Marlene Lynch Ford agreed with the township, dismissing the complaint.

Wronko appealed, maintaining that his requests were clear and not overly broad, and Appellate Division Judges Douglas Fasciale, Thomas Sumners Jr. and Scott Moynihan agreed, reversing the decision below.

Wronko cited Burnett v. County of Gloucester, a 2010 Appellate Division case that upheld an OPRA request for all settlements, releases and similar documents entered into by a government agency in a specific time period, notwithstanding the requester's failure to cite any specific cases.

The appeals court noted that 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.”

A permissible request does not require a records custodian to exercise discretion, survey employees or conduct research, the panel said. Rather, the responsive records should be self-evident, the court said.

The panel cited Burnett with approval, noting that it was found to provide specific identifying information “even where a custodian was required to search and locate records according to a specific topic area.”

While courts have cautioned against non-specific, blanket requests of public documents, “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,” the panel said in an unsigned opinion. In the Burnett case, the court approved a request for any and all settlements, releases or similar documents entered into, approved or accepted from Jan. 1, 2006, to present. The failure to identify any specific cases “did not render his request a general request for information obtained through research, rather than a request for a specific record,” the court said.

In assessing an agency's argument for nondisclosure, “a court must be guided by the overarching public policy in favor of a citizen's right of access,” the panel said.

The ACLU of New Jersey submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case.

The lawyer for Jackson, Robin LaBue of Gilmore & Monahan in Toms River, said the ruling was not entirely clear because “at the end of the day we don't know what documents we have to give out. We don't know what qualifies as a litigation settlement,” LaBue said. The ruling might not just approve settlement agreements approved by the township's governing body but could extend to tax appeal settlements and workers' compensation settlements, LaBue said.

LaBue said no decision had been made about whether to seek certification at the Supreme Court. She said such a challenge would be especially risky for the township because OPRA's fee-shifting provision would require it to pay the other side's litigation costs if Jackson did not prevail.

CJ Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden in Hackensack, who represented Wronko, said the decision “reaffirms the court's prior decisions” on the issue, including Burnett. But Griffin added that OPRA claims of this type nonetheless continue to receive resistance.