Lagerkvist v. Office of the Governor, 443 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div. 2015). Plaintiff, a journalist, made a request under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. (“OPRA”) for “[c]opies of all available documentation for out-of-state travel from 2012 to present by Chris Christie and/or members of his senior staff to attend or participate in third-party funded events.” The request went on to call for “any event programs, schedules or other records disclosing the particulars of the events, the role of Christie and/or members of his senior staff at the events and the travel arrangements including itineraries,” as well as “any emails, internal or external, regarding the arrangements and events.” Also sought were travel vouchers and original receipts if any expenses for these events were charged to the State. Noting that OPRA requires a party seeking documents “to specifically describe the document sought,” the request was denied as “unclear, and … therefore invalid under OPRA.”
Plaintiff then sought to amplify his request, though his communication added little to what he had previously said. When there was no response, plaintiff filed suit under OPRA. The Law Division dismissed the complaint. On plaintiff’s appeal, the Appellate Division, speaking through Judge Alvarez, affirmed, under the de novo standard of review.
Judge Alvarez began by ruling that the rejection of the request as “unclear” rather than “overbroad” was not improper, and that plaintiff’s argument based on that difference was “a matter of semantics.” The language that cited the need “to specifically describe the document sought” effectively stated that the request was overbroad.
Plaintiff’s second request, purportedly a clarification of his original request, “was no more than a rephrasing of the first [request].” In fact, “nothing in it changed from the initial inquiry.” The custodian of records need not have responded to the second request since a response had already been made to the first request “in a fashion that satisfied the statute.” That non-response constituted a denial.
OPRA requires that when a records request is objected to as “substantially disrupt[ing] agency operations,” the custodian may deny access “after attempting to reach a reasonable solution with the requestor.” N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g). Though the rejection here was not based on substantial disruption of agency operations, but on the overbreadth and lack of clarity of the request, plaintiff contended that the custodian had the duty to work out a “reasonable solution” with him. Judge Alvarez did not agree. There was no legal basis to extend the duty to reach a reasonable solution beyond the particular context that OPRA requires.
Fundamentally, plaintiff’s request was improper, calling as it did for documents “for an unknown number of persons for an unknown number of events” for a period of several years. Judge Alvarez explained the multiple levels of research that the request would have entailed, and observed that “OPRA does not convert a custodian into a researcher.” A proper request “would ask for specific documents regarding a third-party funded event occurring on a specific date, naming those who participated.” Plaintiff’s request “clearly exceeded the limits of OPRA.”