Plaintiff Who Made Public Newark's Amazon 'HQ2' Proposal Seeks Fee Award
The City of Newark is weighing a request for legal fees from a plaintiff who successfully challenged its nondisclosure policy concerning its proposal to serve as a second headquarters city for Amazon.
April 26, 2018 at 04:25 PM
3 minute read
The City of Newark is weighing a request for legal fees from a plaintiff who successfully challenged its nondisclosure policy concerning its proposal to serve as a second headquarters city for Amazon.
On Tuesday Newark turned over its 201-page HQ2 application, with redactions on six of those pages, to requester Steven Wronko. The disclosure follows a suit filed by Wronko in February under the Open Public Records Act over the city's assertion that its application to Amazon was off-limits to the public.
CJ Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden in Hackensack, New Jersey, who represents Wronko, said she was not sure of the amount of legal fees at issue in the case. OPRA grants fees and costs to prevailing parties in open records suits. The settlement follows a April 20 hearing on Newark's motion to dismiss the case. On that day, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Beacham adjourned the case so the parties could hold settlement talks, Griffin said.
Newark's proposal to Amazon includes information about possible development sites, technology infrastructure and potential partnerships with local universities.
It also includes information about crime, housing, entertainment and sustainability and letters of support from community leaders.
Wronko filed suit against the city in February after his request for a copy of the city's proposal was declined by the city.
Newark had maintained that rules of the HQ2 competition required it to keep its submission confidential. It asserted in the motion for dismissal that it was entitled to the competitive advantage exception under OPRA.
Wronko maintained, however, in opposition to the motion, that Amazon's nondisclosure agreement only applies to information that Amazon disclosed to Newark, adding that the company stated that agencies should comply with public records laws. In addition, Wronko said Newark failed to provide evidence that disclosure would put it at a disadvantage. Courts have held that an agency cannot overcome OPRA's presumption of access by “simply making a conclusory statement that a record is exempt or harm will occur if a record is released.”
Newark is one of 20 finalists in the HQ2 competition, which is expected to bring 50,000 high-paying jobs and $5 billion in construction to the location the company selects to partner with its Seattle headquarters. Although several other New Jersey cities and towns applied, Newark's application had the support of former Gov. Chris Christie and the Legislature, which offered $7 billion in financial incentives.
The redacted portions of the Newark proposal pertain to the financial incentives, Griffin said.
Griffin said some other finalist cities put their application materials online from the outset of the process. “That builds pride and buy-in from residents. The people of Newark were completely excluded, but we are happy that they can now be part of the process,” he said in a statement.
Griffin said the application disclosed the existence of a promotional website made on behalf of Newark's application, www.yesnewark.com.
“Evidently the city hired a PR firm to create the site and market Newark, but the fact that no one really knows about that site makes me wonder whether we got the most bang for our buck. Certainly Boston and D.C. utilized their websites much more effectively,” she said in an e-mail.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Samora Noguera, who represents Newark in the case, said the city would not comment on the case.
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 AllAppellate Division Strikes Down Government Records Council's Regulation During Pending Denial-of-Access Complaint
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 2U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 3From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 4How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
- 5'Discordant Dots': Why Phila. Zantac Judge Rejected Bid for His Recusal
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