ALEXIS SERRINGER VS. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE Â OF NEW JERSEY(L-1377-15, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0837-15T2
ALEXIS SERRINGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
OF THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________________________________________
Argued January 18, 2017 – Decided June 16, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket
No. L-1377-15.
Eric Dixon argued the cause for appellant.
Raymond R. Chance, III, Assistant Attorney
General, argued the cause for respondent
(Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney; Mr. Chance, of counsel; Valentina
M. DiPippo, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff, Alexis Serringer, appeals from the Law Division's
order dismissing her complaint that sought the production of
documents from defendant, Office of the Governor of the State of
New Jersey, pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA),
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. Plaintiff submitted an OPRA request to
defendant to provide all correspondence between it and Choose New
Jersey, Inc. (Choose NJ) between January 1, 2013 and April 24,
2015. The request defined correspondence, but did not state the
subject matter of the records sought. Defendant denied the request
as overbroad, advised plaintiff of its technological limitations,
and explained she could submit a new, more narrowly tailored OPRA
request. Instead of responding, plaintiff filed this action.
After considering plaintiff's complaint and the parties'
arguments, Assignment Judge Mary C. Jacobson found that
plaintiff's request was overbroad as it was not restricted to a
discrete and limited subject matter and dismissed plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice. On appeal, plaintiff challenges the
judge's determination, arguing that her request was not overbroad,
but was as specific as possible because she limited it to written
communications, including facsimiles and e-mails, specified a date
range, and narrowed the subject matter to Choose NJ. We disagree
and affirm.
2 A-0837-15T2
The facts are not in dispute. On April 25, 2015, plaintiff
submitted an OPRA request to defendant requesting that it
"[p]rovide all correspondence between (a) your office and (b)
[Choose NJ], dated between January 1, 2013 and April 24, 2015.
This correspondence is defined to include communications in paper,
fax or e-mail format including e-mails sent to or received from
'choosenj.com.'" On May 11, 2015, citing Spectraserv, Inc. v.
Middlesex County Utility Authority, 416 N.J. Super. 565, 576 (App.
Div. 2010) and New Jersey Builders Ass'n v. New Jersey Council on
Affordable Housing, 390 N.J. Super. 166, 171, 178 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 190 N.J. 394 (2007), defendant denied the request
on the basis that it was overbroad and invalid. Defendant advised
plaintiff that she could submit a new, more narrowly tailored OPRA
request. Specifically, defendant stated:
If there are specific records that you seek,
please identify them as explicitly as possible
and we will attempt to locate the records for
you. If you choose to do so, please be advised
that due to current technological limitations
in our Office's email system, we cannot
perform office-wide email searches or searches
for more than one keyword at a time. In
addition, due to our system's limitations, we
need the names of specific employees whose
records you would like us to search using an
identified keyword. To summarize, if you
would like us to search for correspondence,
in a new OPRA request, please identify the
specific custodians whose accounts you would
like searched, a specific subject matter and
a limited date range.
3 A-0837-15T2
Plaintiff did not respond to defendant's letter or submit a
revised OPRA request. Instead, she commenced this action. After
the parties made written submissions, Judge Jacobson considered
their oral arguments on September 16, 2015, dismissed plaintiff's
complaint, and placed her reasons on the record in a comprehensive
oral decision.
Relying on MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of Alcoholic
Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005), the judge
reviewed the procedure for making an OPRA request and observed
that it is the requester's obligation to "identify with reasonable
clarity those documents that are desired, and that a party cannot
satisfy this requirement by simply requesting all of an agency's
documents." She further stated that plaintiff's refusal to put
any limitations on the approximately 140 employees whose files
needed to be searched demonstrated over-breadth because "every
single one of them[,] their e-mail accounts[,] and their paper
record[s would have to be searched] without any topic limitation
whatsoever."
Judge Jacobson acknowledged that defendant could have
conducted a "reasonable search," but found that it "wouldn't have
been responsive to the actual request that was received" because
it is not "incumbent upon the agency under the law to provide a
4 A-0837-15T2
partial [response] that would answer some but not the whole
request." She also distinguished this case from Burke v. Brandes,
429 N.J. Super. 169 (App. Div. 2012), reasoning that unlike the
request in Burke for "E-ZPass benefits provided to Port Authority
retirees," there was no "discrete and limited subject matter"
articulated here. On September 17, 2015, the judge entered an
order memorializing her oral decision. This appeal followed.
"We review a trial judge's legal conclusions concerning
access to public records under OPRA de novo[, but w]e will not
disturb factual findings as long as they are supported by adequate,
substantial and credible evidence." Paff v. Galloway Twp., 444
N.J. Super. 495, 501 (App. Div.), certif. granted, 227 N.J. 24(2016) (citations omitted).
"Any analysis of OPRA must begin with the recognition that
the Legislature created OPRA intending to make government records
'readily accessible' to the state's citizens 'with certain
exceptions[] for the protection of the public interest.'" Gilleran
v. Bloomfield, 227 N.J. 159, 170 (2016) (alteration in original)
(quoting N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1); see also Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196
N.J. 51, 65 (2008). To effectuate that purpose, OPRA establishes
a comprehensive framework for access to public records. Mason,
supra, 196 N.J. at 57. OPRA requires, among other things, prompt
5 A-0837-15T2
disclosure of records and provides different procedures to
challenge a custodian's decision denying access. Ibid.In assessing the sufficiency of the agency's proofs submitted
in support of its claim for nondisclosure, "a court must be guided
by the overarching public policy in favor of a citizen's right of
access." Courier News v. Hunterdon Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 358
N.J. Super. 373, 383 (App. Div. 2003) (citing N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1).
Absent the necessary proofs, "a citizen's right of access is
unfettered." Ibid. If it is determined access has been improperly
denied, the access sought shall be granted. Id. at 378 (citing
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6).
Despite that public policy, OPRA does not "'authorize a party
to make a blanket request for every document' a public agency has
on file. . . . Rather, a party requesting access to a public
record under OPRA must specifically describe the document sought."
Bent v. Twp. of Stafford Police Dept., Custodian of Records, 381
N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting Gannett N.J. Partners
L.P. v. Cty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. 205, 219 (App. Div.
2005)). "While OPRA provides [a] . . . means of access to
government documents not otherwise exempted from its reach, it is
not intended as a research tool litigants may use to force
government officials to identify and siphon useful information."
Lagerkvist v. Office of Governor of State, 443 N.J. Super. 230,
6 A-0837-15T2
236 (App. Div. 2015) (alterations in original) (quoting MAG Entm't,
LLC, supra, 375 N.J. Super. at 546).
Blanket requests for unspecified documents are not "a proper
request under OPRA[. The request] must identify with reasonable
clarity those documents that are desired, and a party cannot
satisfy this requirement by simply requesting all of an agency's
documents." Bent, supra, 381 N.J. Super. at 37. "OPRA does not
authorize unbridled searches of an agency's property," ibid., that
"would substantially disrupt agency operations[. T]he custodian
may deny . . . [it and] . . . attempt[] to reach a reasonable
solution . . . that accommodates the interests of the requestor
and the agency." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g). A proper OPRA request must
state a "specific subject matter that [is] clearly and reasonably
described with sufficient identifying information . . . ." Burke,
supra, 429 N.J. Super. at 176.
In order to limit a blanket request, the subject matter of
the type of document sought should be identified in the request.
We have determined requests that identified a specific subject
matter with sufficient identifying information were not overly
broad even where a custodian was required to search and locate
records according to a specific topic area. For example, a request
for "[a]ny and all settlements, releases or similar documents
entered into, approved or accepted from 1/1/2006 to present" was
7 A-0837-15T2
permitted by OPRA. Burnett v. Cty. of Gloucester, 415 N.J. Super.
506, 508 (App. Div. 2010) (alteration in original). "The fact
that the plaintiff did not specify matters to which the settlements
related 'did not render his request a general request for
information obtained through research, rather than a request for
a specific record.'" Burke, supra, 429 N.J. Super. at 177 (quoting
Burnett, supra, 415 N.J. Super. at 513-14). We have also permitted
an OPRA request, which was confined to a specific subject matter
and that clearly and reasonably described the documents requested
with sufficient identifying information. See id. at 172, 176, 178
(addressing a request for documents relating to E-ZPass benefits
provided to Port Authority retirees). We concluded that the
request for the specific documents was limited to particularized
identifiable government records, namely, correspondence with
another government entity, rather than information generally. Id.
at 176. These permissible requests did not require a custodian
to exercise discretion, survey employees, or conduct research,
rather, the responsive records are self-evident. See id. at 177.
With these guiding principles in mind, we conclude from our
review that plaintiff's request was overly broad. Plaintiff's
failure to identify a subject matter for the correspondence
exchanged between defendant and Choose NJ would have required
every employee in defendant's office to engage in a search of all
8 A-0837-15T2
of defendant's files to locate responsive documents, including a
search of documents sent between every one of defendant's present
and past employees and Choose NJ. "This was no 'routine search
of files pertaining to a very narrowly specified topic.'"
Lagerkvist, supra, 443 N.J. Super. at 237 (quoting Burke, supra,
429 N.J. Super. at 177). Plaintiff's "inquiry clearly exceeded
the limits of OPRA. The denial of access was proper." Ibid.
Affirmed.
9 A-0837-15T2