Counsel Fee Awards Affirmed in OPRA Case Over Fatal Police Shooting
The court affirmed the $114,402 fee award to the Home News Tribune, which is owned by the Gannett Co., and NJ Advance Media, which publishes The Star-Ledger of Newark.
March 02, 2018 at 05:28 PM
5 minute read
A New Jersey appeals court has said the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office must pay two news outlets more than $100,000 in counsel fees after they successfully sued the office for access to 911 call recordings involving the fatal shooting of a suicidal septuagenarian.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel, in an unpublished decision on March 2, affirmed the $114,402 fee award to the Home News Tribune, which is owned by the Gannett Co., and NJ Advance Media, which publishes The Star-Ledger of Newark.
Appellate Division Judges Susan Reisner and Robert Gilson, and Law Division Judge Jessica Mayer, temporarily assigned, said the news outlets met the definition of prevailing parties under the state's Open Public Records Act, even though the prosecutor's office argued it complied with the law when it provided an edited version of the radio communications.
It its ruling, the court affirmed a decision by Superior Court Judge Trevor Francis to award the counsel fees.
“There is ample evidence in the record for the judge's determination,” the appeals court said in the per curiam decision.
Francis awarded $74,818 to the Home News Tribune and $39,582 to NJ Advance Media after finding that they prevailed, which is a requirement for awarding fees under OPRA.
The incident involved a police response at the home of an Old Bridge man, Talbot Schroeder, 74, a little more than three years ago.
The report, by the prosecutor's office, said the use of force was justifiable because Schroeder repeatedly ignored commands to drop a knife and threatened the officer with it, having already used it to slit his wrists and stab himself, according to the court. The police officer, the report said, was forced into a position in which he could not retreat.
The incident, according to reports in The Star-Ledger, began when a 911 call came in at 5:59 p.m. on Jan. 14, 2015, for medical assistance for a man with a knife who had reportedly attempted suicide by cutting his wrists. When the two officers arrived, one entered the house while the other retrieved a first-aid kit, the report said.
The first officer was directed to a downstairs room where he encountered Schroeder, who “was seated on the floor several feet away with a knife in his right hand,” according to the Star-Ledger. The report said the officer ordered Schroeder to drop the knife, “to which he replied 'No,' and made a motion as if to throw the knife in the officer's direction.”
The officer, who has not been identified, retreated to the stairwell for cover. The report said Schroeder stood up and “began walking toward the officer, brandishing the knife at head level.”
The second officer went into the home and immediately heard the first officer's vocal commands to drop the knife, the report said. He moved toward the sounds of the first officer's voice and saw the first officer at the bottom of the stairs, against the wall with his weapon drawn.
“From his vantage point in the foyer, he could not see Talbot Schroeder,” the report said. “Before officer #2 could advance further, officer #1 fired one shot. Officer #2 immediately notified police headquarters of the shot fired and requested first aid.”
The report said the investigation into the shooting determined that before the original 911 call, Schroeder had drawn a knife and attempted to strike his wife, who suffered lacerations to her hand and face. She was able to flee upstairs and wake her son, who on going downstairs discovered his father on the floor, actively bleeding from lacerations to both his wrists, the report said.
Schroeder refused to give the knife to his son and reportedly pointed it in his direction when the son tried to take it from him, the report said.
The prosecutor's office, which initially denied the news outlets' requests for the 911 tape, eventually produced a redacted version, according to the Appellate Division. The news agencies filed a complaint, which the prosecutor's office defended by arguing that the redactions were justified to protect the identity of the caller and others.
Francis said the redactions were acceptable but rejected the office's apparently unorthodox request for a protective order to protect individual identities. He awarded the fees, rejecting the office's contention that the materials it sent to the newspapers were not as a result of the OPRA litigation.
“We agree with the motion judge that the Newspapers' lawsuits were a catalyst for the disclosure of the 911 call,” the Appellate Division said. “As early as February 2015, the MCPO knew the Newspapers intended to file OPRA lawsuits if the 911 call was not released. Knowing the Newspapers planned to file litigation, the MCPO filed its 'procedurally deficient' motion for a protective order.”
Thomas Cafferty of Gibbons in Newark represented the Home News Tribune, while Keith Miller of Robinson Miller in Newark represented NJ Advance Media. Both said the court was correct.
The prosecutor's office retained Christopher Harriott of Hoboken's Florio Kenny Raval. He declined to comment.
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 AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readTrending Stories
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