CARROL McMORROW v. BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS (L-6702-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-3192-19
    CARROL McMORROW,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD
    CLIFFS,
    Defendant,1
    and
    LISETTE DUFFY, in her official
    capacity as Municipal Clerk and
    Records Custodian for the
    Borough of Englewood Cliffs,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _____________________________
    Argued January 18, 2022 – Decided February 25, 2022
    Before Judges Messano and Rose.
    1
    We granted the Borough's motion to file a separate brief, but it failed to file
    any brief and did not participate in the appeal.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-6702-19.
    Michael Malatino argued the cause for appellant
    (Meredith Malatino Law, LLC, attorneys; Michael
    Malatino, on the briefs).
    Donald M. Doherty, Jr., argued the cause for
    respondent.
    PER CURIAM
    At all relevant times, defendant Lisette Duffy was the borough clerk and
    records custodian for defendant Borough of Englewood Cliffs (the Borough,
    collectively, defendants). Plaintiff Carrol McMorrow served a request pursuant
    to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, seeking
    government records in eight categories:
    1. Copy of all communications between any of the
    following representing the Borough . . . (including
    Council members past and present, James Barberio,
    Anne Marie Rizzuto, [defendant], Albert Wunsch,
    Mark Ruderman and/or Joseph Mariniello) and the
    Department of Community Affairs, including but not
    limited to the Division of Local Government Services,
    from 10/1/18 to 4/1/19.
    2. Copy of all communications between any of the
    following representing the Borough . . . (including
    Council members past and present, James Barberio,
    Anne Marie Rizzuto, [defendant], Albert Wunsch,
    Mark Ruderman and/or Joseph Mariniello) and the
    Office of Administrative Law from 10/1/18 to 4/1/19.
    A-3192-19
    2
    3. Copy of all communications between Mark
    Ruderman and any member of the Council or between
    Mark Ruderman and [defendant] regarding disciplinary
    charges concerning [defendant] between 9/1/18 and
    4/1/19.
    4. Copy of all communications between Mark
    Ruderman and Albert Wunsch regarding disciplinary
    charges concerning [defendant] between 9/1/18 and
    4/1/19.
    5. Copy of all communications between Albert Wunsch
    and [defendant] regarding disciplinary charges
    concerning [defendant] between 9/1/18 and 4/1/19.
    6. Copy of all communications between Carin Geiger
    and David J. Ruitenberg of Murphy McKeon beginning
    1/3/2019 and 4/1/19.
    7. Copy of all communications between Al Wunsch and
    David J. Ruitenberg of Murphy McKeon beginning
    1/3/2019 and 4/1/19.
    8. Copy of all papers distributed to the Mayor and
    Council by Carin Geiger at the 3-13-19 Mayor and
    Council meeting.
    Defendant responded, indicating as to items one and two, she "provided
    [plaintiff's] request to [the borough's] I.T. consultant," who "quoted
    approximately [eight] hours (max) for the search," at a charge of $125 per hour.
    As to items three through seven, defendant provided some "responsive records,"
    but after review with the attorneys named in those requests, defendant responded
    all other records were subject to OPRA's "exception[s] for [a]ttorney [c]lient
    A-3192-19
    3
    [p]rivilege, [a]ttorney [w]ork [p]roduct, [p]ersonnel and deliberative." As to
    item eight, defendant advised she was not provided with copies of the papers
    distributed by Geiger, the Borough did not retain any copies, and some of the
    "governing body members informed [defendant] they threw the papers out."
    Plaintiff filed a complaint demanding access to the records "without the
    imposition of special service charges," an order requiring the Borough produce
    the records responsive to items three through seven for in camera review by the
    court, and an order requiring the Borough conduct a "new search" regarding item
    eight and compel defendants to "outline what they did to conduct the prior search
    and the new search." Defendant filed a certification as part of the Borough's
    opposition to the complaint. Among other things, she detailed the limits of her
    "technological knowledge" of the computer system and her conversation with
    the Borough's "IT person," Kamran Mahmoudarabi, regarding items one and
    two. Mahmoudarabi also filed a certification explaining the details of the work
    he needed to perform to accommodate the two requests.
    Defendant also explained that the attorneys named in items three through
    five and number seven all told her the documents were privileged; the attorney
    named in item six advised he had no communications with Geiger. Lastly,
    defendant explained that the Borough attorney, mayor, and council members did
    A-3192-19
    4
    not have copies of the documents mentioned in item eight; one council member
    never answered defendant's inquiry.
    The judge held oral argument on the return date of the order to show cause
    and subsequently issued a written opinion supporting her January 6, 2020 order. 2
    After comprehensively reciting relevant OPRA caselaw, the judge concluded
    defendants failed to justify imposition of a special service charge pursuant to
    N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c) or (d), "simply because [defendant wa]s incapable of
    performing searches within the email accounts for multiple named individuals."
    She ordered defendant to produce the records within ten days.
    The judge found defendant's responses to the remaining requests were
    inadequate because she failed to provide specific information regarding asserted
    OPRA exemptions.         The judge ordered defendants to produce a Paff
    certification3 regarding items three through eight, and a Vaughn index4 as to
    items three through seven.
    2
    The order and supporting opinion were filed January 8, 2020.
    3
    In Paff v. New Jersey Department of Labor, we set out information the records
    custodian must supply in sworn statements when responding to a records
    request. 
    392 N.J. Super. 334
    , 341 (App. Div. 2007).
    4
    In a "Vaughn index," "the custodian of records identifies responsive
    documents and the exemptions it claims warrant non-disclosure." N. Jersey
    A-3192-19
    5
    Although noting the filing of Paff certifications and Vaughn indexes were
    not required "at the time of an OPRA response," the judge concluded doing so
    were "prudent means of complying with the statute." Citing several previous
    OPRA cases involving defendant and the Borough, the judge noted, "[d]espite
    this court's repeated warnings, [defendant] has continued to fail in practicing
    such diligence."
    The judge found "[t]here [wa]s no question that [the papers referenced in]
    item eight constitute[] a government record" under OPRA. She concluded "it
    [was defendant's] responsibility to ensure that appropriate records [we]re kept,"
    and defendant could have requested a copy from Geiger at the meeting or
    "requisitioned a copy . . . once she received" plaintiff's OPRA request. The
    judge had imposed a penalty against defendant in a prior lawsuit, and now she
    concluded under the "totality of the circumstances" defendant's "blanket denials
    violate[d] both the statute and the court's prior numerous warnings." The judge
    held defendant "unreasonably den[ied] access in a knowing and willful manner,"
    and because it was defendant's second violation, the judge imposed a $2,500
    Media Grp., Inc. v. Bergen Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., 
    447 N.J. Super. 182
    , 191
    (App. Div. 2016) (citing Vaughn v. Rosen, 
    484 F.2d 820
    , 826–27 (D.C. Cir.
    1973)).
    A-3192-19
    6
    civil penalty pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11. The judge's order prohibited the
    Borough from paying the penalty or reimbursing defendant.
    Defendants moved for reconsideration.         Defendant supplied a more
    detailed certification regarding her actions in responding to plaintiff's request s
    and documentation detailing her interactions with counsel regarding items three
    through seven. The judge granted the motion in part, vacating her prior order
    as it related to items three, four, five and seven. Somewhat inexplicably, despite
    the undisputed denial by the attorney named in item six of any communication
    between him and Geiger, much less the existence of a responsive government
    record, the judge reiterated that a Paff certification and Vaughn index as to item
    six must be produced within seven days. The judge denied reconsideration of
    her prior order regarding items one, two and eight, again ordering a Paff
    certification and Vaughn index as to those items. Finally, the judge reaffirmed
    the civil penalty imposed on defendant.
    Defendant appeals from the initial order and the order denying
    reconsideration. She raises a single issue, specifically that the judge mistakenly
    abused her discretion in finding defendant knowingly and willfully violated
    A-3192-19
    7
    OPRA and unreasonably denied access to a government record. We agree the
    judge erred and reverse.5
    "OPRA, at its core, was 'designed to promote transparency in the operation
    of government,' with a purpose 'to maximize public knowledge about public
    affairs in order to ensure an informed citizenry and to minimize the evils
    inherent in a secluded process.'" Bozzi v. City of Jersey City, 
    248 N.J. 274
    , 283
    (2021) (quoting first Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers, 
    210 N.J. 531
    ,
    541 (2012); and then quoting Mason v. City of Hoboken, 
    196 N.J. 51
    , 64
    (2008)). On appeal from an order deciding an OPRA dispute, we defer to the
    judge's factual findings when supported by adequate, substantial and credible
    evidence, but we owe no deference to her interpretation of the law or the legal
    consequences that flow from those facts. N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. State,
    
    451 N.J. Super. 282
    , 301–02 (App. Div. 2017) (citations omitted).
    N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11(a) provides:
    A public official, officer, employee or custodian
    who knowingly and willfully violates [OPRA] . . . and
    is found to have unreasonably denied access under the
    totality of the circumstances, shall be subject to a civil
    5
    The only relief defendant seeks in her brief is reversal and vacation of the civil
    penalty imposed against her, not reversal of the other paragraphs of the judge's
    orders finding violations of OPRA. We only address the merits of the trial
    judge's rulings as to items one, two and eight in the context of the propriety of
    the civil penalty.
    A-3192-19
    8
    penalty of $1,000 for an initial violation, $2,500 for a
    second violation that occurs within [ten] years of an
    initial violation, and $5,000 for a third violation that
    occurs within [ten] years of an initial violation. This
    penalty shall be collected and enforced in proceedings
    in accordance with the "Penalty Enforcement Law of
    1999, [N.J.S.A. 2A:58-10 to -12]," and the rules of
    court governing actions for the collection of civil
    penalties. The Superior Court shall have jurisdiction of
    proceedings for the collection and enforcement of the
    penalty imposed by this section.
    Appropriate disciplinary proceedings may be
    initiated against a public official, officer, employee or
    custodian against whom a penalty has been imposed.
    "N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11 provides a valuable means to compel compliance with
    OPRA by public officials, officers, employees and records custodians who
    might otherwise flout OPRA's requirements and willfully and knowingly
    deprive the public of access to government records." N. Jersey Media Grp., 451
    N.J. Super. at 309.    But "custodians[] are only personally liable if they
    'knowingly and willfully' violate the provisions of OPRA[] and are 'found to
    have unreasonably denied access [to government records] under the totality of
    the circumstances.'" Courier News v. Hunterdon Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., 
    378 N.J. Super. 539
    , 546 (App. Div. 2005) (alteration in original) (second emphasis
    added) (quoting N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11(a)).
    A-3192-19
    9
    The phrase "willful and knowing violation" is not defined in the statute,
    therefore we assign the words their "generally accepted meaning, according to
    the approved usage of the language." N.J.S.A. 1:1-1. "'Willful' has been defined
    as 'deliberate, voluntary, or intentional,' 'but not necessarily malicious.'" State
    v. Moran, 
    202 N.J. 311
    , 323 (2010) (first quoting Webster's Unabridged
    Dictionary of the English Language 2175 (2001); and then quoting Black's Law
    Dictionary 1737 (9th ed. 2009)).      "'Knowing' is well understood to be an
    awareness or knowledge of the illegality of one's act." Allstate Ins. Co. v.
    Northfield Med. Ctr., PC, 
    228 N.J. 596
    , 620 (2017) (citing Black's Law
    Dictionary 950).
    In Bart v. City of Paterson Housing Authority, we considered the
    defendant's appeal from the final decision of the Government Records Council
    (GRC) that the authority's record custodian knowingly and willfully violated
    OPRA. 
    403 N.J. Super. 609
    , 612 (App. Div. 2008). We accepted the GRC's
    definition of those terms, specifically "a knowing and willful violation of the
    statute would require that the custodian must have had actual knowledge that his
    actions were wrongful, and that there had to be a positive element of conscious
    wrongdoing." 
    Id. at 619
    . "We decline[d] to equate a public entity's decision to
    A-3192-19
    10
    consult with its counsel and to seek the assistance of counsel in drafting
    correspondence with a knowing and willful violation of the statute." 
    Ibid.
    Here, defendant sought the advice of the Borough's IT consultant in
    fashioning a response to items one and two. The judge ignored the certification
    of Mahmoudarabi, who explained a response required the expenditure of some
    time and effort, and instead concluded defendant's limited technological
    knowledge of the computer system was a deficiency supporting a finding of
    "conscious wrongdoing." Moreover, the judge expressed her personal belief
    about the ease in accessing the computer system and providing the requested
    emails, despite defendant's clear certification that she was not the administrator
    of the Borough's computer system and did not have the ability to access the
    emails of the various officials.
    We do not consider whether the judge's ultimate conclusion that
    defendants' response to items one and two violated OPRA was in error; we only
    conclude that the record evidence did not meet the requisite standard of proof to
    find a knowing and willful violation.
    Turning to item eight, OPRA defines a "[g]overnment record" as:
    any paper . . . document . . . data processed or image
    processed document, [or] information stored or
    maintained electronically . . . that has been made,
    maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its
    A-3192-19
    11
    official business by any officer, commission, agency or
    authority of the State . . . or that has been received in
    the course of his or its official business by such officer,
    commission, agency, or authority . . . .
    [N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 (emphasis added).]
    Item eight sought "papers" that a private citizen distributed to the mayor and
    council at a public meeting. The record fails to reveal what these papers were
    or whether the mayor or council even addressed them during the meeting. It is
    clear, however, that defendant was never given a copy of the documents , and
    they were never formally filed or acknowledged to be part of the official
    proceedings. We express grave doubt they were government records at all.
    In any event, the judge concluded these unspecified documents were
    government records and further determined defendant's failure to incorporate
    them as part of the official proceedings and archive them as government records
    was sufficient to find a violation of OPRA. More importantly, it was the judge's
    personal opinion about defendant's obligations to do more to preserve and
    produce the documents that justified the finding of a knowing and willful
    violation of OPRA. That legal conclusion was clearly erroneous and deserves
    no further attention. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
    In opposing this appeal, plaintiff's counsel addressed a procedural issue
    that is not before us but deserves mention. As noted, the enforcement of
    A-3192-19
    12
    sanctions imposed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11 requires summary proceedings
    under the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999. Under that statute, "[i]f a judgment
    for a civil penalty is rendered against a defendant, payment shall be made to the
    court and shall be remitted to the State Treasurer of New Jersey, unless other
    disposition is provided for in the statute imposing the penalty." N.J.S.A. 2A:58-
    11(f). OPRA does not provide for some "other disposition." As counsel noted,
    plaintiff is not entitled to the monies collected and has no interest in the
    summary proceedings contemplated under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11.
    Plaintiff's counsel avers that perhaps the Attorney General must intervene
    to enforce the civil penalty, and he candidly acknowledged before us that the
    practice in trial courts throughout the State lacks uniformity and consistency.
    We readily understand. However, in light of our disposition of this appeal, the
    issue is not properly before us, and we will not address it at this time.
    Reversed. The civil penalties imposed against defendant are vacated.
    A-3192-19
    13