Middlesex Prosecutor Again Loses on OPRA Fees Issue
For the second time in less than a month, a New Jersey appeals court has ruled that the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office is on the hook for counsel fees in an Open Public Records Act case in connection with the fatal police shooting of a suicidal elderly man.
March 20, 2018 at 04:00 PM
6 minute read
For the second time in less than a month, a New Jersey appeals court has ruled that the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office is on the hook for counsel fees in an Open Public Records Act case in connection with the fatal police shooting of a suicidal elderly man, Talbot Schroeder.
The two-judge Appellate Division panel on Tuesday ruled that plaintiffs Richard Rivera and Colleen Wronko should be awarded $21,737. Counsel fees “will be disturbed only on the rarest of occasions and then only because of a clear abuse of discretion,” said Appellate Division Judges Susan Reisner and Robert Gilson, quoting an appeals court ruling from 2007, McGowan v. O'Rourke.
The ruling comes on the heels of a ruling earlier this month in a related case, when a similarly constituted panel said the prosecutor's office must pay two news outlets more than $100,000 in counsel fees after they sued the office for access to 911 call recordings and other documents.
The appeals court described Rivera and Wronko as two Middlesex County residents who are concerned about police use of force. They were given redacted versions of the documents they requested with no explanation, ultimately prevailed at the trial court level when the office was ordered to turn over additional certification and indexing, and were awarded the $21,737 in fees and costs.
“Our courts use the 'catalyst theory' to determine whether a plaintiff is a prevailing party in a litigation,” the Appellate Division said Tuesday in affirming the decision below in Rivera v. Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office.
“Many of the documents ultimately received were redacted,” the court added. “Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that 'making redactions to records does not limit the success achieved[.]' We discern no abuse of discretion in that ruling and no error of law.”
C.J. Griffin of Hackensack's Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, representing the plaintiffs, said, ”This was pretty much a frivolous appeal.”
Middlesex County Prosecutor Andrew Carey issued a statement.
“The recent litigation surrounding the release of the 911 tape has very little to do with First Amendment rights, and everything to do with common decency and protecting the privacy rights of those who may find themselves in a horrific situation,” Carey said
Christopher Harriott, of Florio Kennny Raval in Hoboken, represented the prosecutor's office. He did not return a telephone call.
Neither the prosecutor's office nor its attorney, Christopher Harriott of Florio Kenny Raval in Hoboken, returned calls seeking comment.
On March 2, the Appellate Division affirmed the $114,402 fee award to the Home News Tribune, which is owned by the Gannett Co., and NJ Advance Media, publisher of The Star-Ledger. Reisner and Gilson were on that panel, too. The judges, then joined by Law Division Judge Jessica Mayer, temporarily assigned, said the news outlets met the definition of prevailing parties even though they received redacted records.
It its ruling, the court affirmed a decision by Superior Court Judge Trevor Francis, who awarded $74,818 to the Home News Tribune and $39,582 to NJ Advance Media.
The incident involved a police response at Schroeder's home in Old Bridge, a little more than three years ago, according to court documents.
A prosecutor's office report 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.
In the OPRA dispute that followed, the prosecutor's office defended its actions by arguing that the redactions were justified to protect the identity of the caller and others.
Francis, in the news agencies' litigation, 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.
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
© 2025 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 AllNJ Jury Awards $8M to Woman Injured by Employees Chasing Suspected Shoplifter
3 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Connell Foley; Greenbaum Rowe; Tanenbaum Keale; NJ Commission of Investigation
4 minute readBankruptcy Judge Clears Path for Recovery in High-Profile Crypto Failure
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Firms Come Out of the Gate With High-Profile Litigation Hires in 2025
- 2Legal Departments, Firms Expect Gen AI to Boost ALSP Usage
- 3Law Firms Are 'Struggling' With Partner Pay Segmentation, as Top Rainmakers Bring In More Revenue
- 4Diversity Lab Alters DEI-Centered Verbiage on Mansfield Certification Website
- 5Tuesday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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