NJ Suit Seeks to Unmask Newark's Proposal to Amazon for 'HQ2'
Steven Wronko sued the city Tuesday in Essex County Superior Court to reverse a records custodian's decision denying his request to obtain documents relating to Newark's attempts to woo Amazon.
February 21, 2018 at 03:36 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Shutterstock
Transparency advocates Tuesday filed an open records suit after Newark, New Jersey, city officials refused to make public details of the city's proposal to serve as a new, second headquarters for Amazon.
Steven Wronko sued the city Tuesday in Essex County Superior Court to reverse a records custodian's decision denying his request to obtain documents relating to Newark's attempts to woo Amazon. The request also seeks information about the city's contracts with marketing companies and other vendors that were hired to help with the application.
New Jersey's citizens have a strong interest in the details of Newark's proposal because of the impact it would have on the state's economy and finances, the suit says. Amazon's request for proposals stated that tax credits and exemptions would be a central issue in the consideration process, according to the suit.
At least 20 New Jersey communities submitted applications to host Amazon's second headquarters, but former Gov. Chris Christie's administration supported Newark's candidacy.
Amazon announced in September 2017 that it was seeking to establish a second headquarters to augment its current home in Seattle, and it solicited proposals from locales seeking to host the new operation. Amazon's new headquarters site is expected to have 50,000 employees and the company expects to invest $5 billion in new construction. A list of 20 finalists, which included Newark, was released in January.
Boston, Miami, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Philadelphia have made their applications public in response to open records requests, albeit with some redactions, according to the plaintiffs.
But Newark is not the only finalist that has sought to keep its application confidential. Pittsburgh has gone to court to oppose an open records office's order to turn over the application, according to news accounts. And Chicago and Los Angeles have refused to make their Amazon applications available to the public, while Atlanta, Columbus, Dallas and New York have yet to respond to records requests, according to public records website MuckRock.com.
In New Jersey, Atlantic City, Bayonne, Old Bridge, West Windsor and Salem County also provided copies of their applications to host Amazon's headquarters in response to Open Public Records Act requests, according to court papers.
Newark denied Wronko's request for documents about the city's overtures to Amazon based on an exception in the OPRA statute for information that would give an advantage to bidders or competitors if exposed. The city also claims that if its bid terms became publicly known, other cities seeking to attract the company would amend their own bids in response. In addition, Newark has cited Amazon's request for competing cities to keep details of the selection process confidential, the suit claims.
Wronko submitted the application on Jan. 31 and it was denied by Acting Corporation Counsel Kenyatta Johnson on Feb. 2. Johnson said in his rejection letter that nothing would prevent other applicants from amending their bids in response to disclosure of the Newark application. “If the text of the city's bid or the details of the contracts with third party vendors become public, there is a substantial risk that representatives from any of the competing cities will amend their own bids in response. Furthermore, Amazon's representatives have asked that competing cities keep the details of the submission process confidential,” Johnson said when he rejected the OPRA application.
C.J. Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden in Hackensack, who represents Wronko, said public disclosure of Newark's application would not hurt the city's chances of winning the competition.
“The public has a right to transparency. The public has a right to see how much we are spending to get it. This level of secrecy isn't needed,” Griffin said.
The suit disputes Newark's assertion that public disclosure of the application would give other cities a competitive advantage. The suit seeks release after redaction of any aspects of the application that the court determines to be sensitive.
But Griffin said any such information about terms offered to Amazon could be redacted from the city's application before its release. Griffin added that, in the applications from other cities that she reviewed, most of the information is publicly available data about things like local colleges and transportation access.
Newark officials did not return calls about Wronko's suit. Amazon did not respond to a reporter's questions about whether it required cities to keep their proposals confidential.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSuit Claims Amazon Violates Workers' Privacy With Unauthorized Medical Inquiries
5 minute readCalling It Unconstitutional, Companies Sued Over Daniel's Law Want It Struck Down
5 minute readToo Fast? Personal Injury Suit Puts Spotlight on Amazon's Delivery Quotas
4 minute read'Blatant Pretext': Class Action Claims Amazon Fired Employees for Taking FMLA Leave
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250