AGUSTIN GARCIA VS. BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-6475-16, BERGN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-3085-16T3
A-4501-16T3
AGUSTIN GARCIA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE and NEW JERSEY OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendants-Respondents.
________________________________
Argued telephonically January 30, 2019 –
Decided May 17, 2019
Before Judges Haas and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-6475-16.
Agustin Garcia, appellant pro se.
Craig P. Bossong argued the cause for respondent
Bergen County Prosecutors (Florio Perrucci Steinhardt
& Cappelli, LLC, attorneys; Craig P. Bossong, of
counsel and on the brief; Michael P. Marotta, on the
brief).
Aziz O. Nekoukar, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent New Jersey Attorney General
(Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney;
Raymond R. Chance, III, Assistant Attorney General,
of counsel; Aziz O. Nekoukar, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
These two appeals have been calendared back-to-back for the purpose of
a single opinion. They both involve unsuccessful efforts by plaintiff Agustin
Garcia to obtain records, a videotape, an interrogation report and an audiotape
from defendants Bergen County Prosecutor's Office (BCPO), New Jersey
Attorney General's Office (OAG), and Ridgefield Police Department (RPD)
under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, and the
common law right of access, related to his conviction for murdering his ex-
girlfriend on her wedding day in 1999.
After analyzing the facts and law, Assignment Judge Bonnie J. Mizdol
entered orders of dismissal and rendered extensive written decisions. She
determined that plaintiff was provided some of the sought-after records and
copies of the videotape and audiotape in discovery from his prosecution for
murder. She further determined that he had no legitimate interest in the
videotape and audiotape following the denial of his three unsuccessful post -
A-3085-16T3
2
conviction relief (PCR) petitions. We affirm substantially for the thoughtful
reasons given by Judge Mizdol.
I
An extensive recitation of the events underlying plaintiff's OPRA and
common law requests is not necessary, as they are more fully discussed in this
court's four unpublished opinions, which are noted below, regarding appeals of
his convictions, sentences and PCR petitions. We, however, provide a brief
summary as a backdrop to our decision.
Following a lengthy jury trial, plaintiff was convicted of the murder of his
ex-girlfriend, two weapons related offenses, and two counts of endangering the
welfare of a child. The convictions arose out of an incident in which plaintiff
appeared uninvited at his ex-girlfriend's wedding and shot and killed her at close
range in the presence of witnesses, including children. The shooting was
captured by the wedding videographer on high-resolution video tape, which was
copied exactly by RPD Lieutenant David Cassirer to a VHS tape for viewing in
court. Contrary to what the tape revealed, plaintiff testified that after he entered
the bride's house where the wedding was being held, her brother and others
attacked him, he reached for his gun to protect himself, and at some point during
the struggle he blacked out and learned that the bride had been killed. Plaintiff
A-3085-16T3
3
also claimed that upon learning of the bride's death, he stated he wanted to kill
himself. After the final shot, plaintiff was restrained when he attempted to
reload the gun.
Plaintiff was sentenced to life in prison, with thirty years of parole
ineligibility, for murder; a consecutive four-year term for third-degree unlawful
possession of a weapon; and two concurrent four-year terms for endangering the
welfare of a child. We affirmed plaintiff's convictions and sentences for murder
and the weapons offenses, but reversed the convictions on the two counts of
endangering the welfare of a child. State v. Garcia, No. A-3939-01 (App. Div.
May 11, 2004). Plaintiff's petition for certification was denied. State v. Garcia,
181 N.J. 545 (2004).
Plaintiff thereafter filed three unsuccessful petitions for post-conviction
relief. State v. Garcia, No. A-5437-06 (App. Div. Nov. 6, 2009); State v. Garcia,
No. A-3198-09 (App. Div. Aug. 12, 2011); State v. Garcia, No. A-2764-10 (App.
Div. May 16, 2013).
II
We now address plaintiff's contentions and Judge Mizdol's orders in the
two matters before us.
A-3085-16T3
4
A.
A-3085-16
1. 2014 OPRA/Common Law Confession Request
In October 2014, plaintiff submitted an OPRA and common law request
to the RPD seeking the following records, information and video/audio
recordings:
1. Copy of log indicating names and titles of
individuals who participated/observed my in-custody
interrogation at/or around the facilities of Ridgefield
Police (council chambers) on September 26, 1999,
around the hours of 5:00-11:30 p.m.;
2. Copy of any and all written recorded report and/or
statement prepared and/or submitted to [the]
Ridgefield police precinct supervisor or to any other
governmental agency by each and every individual
participant in my in-custody interrogation, including
but not limited to, Lieutenant Brian T. Callahan,
Detective Robert Anzilotti, Thomas P. Falotico and
Dennis Suarez, among others;
3. Copy of any and all interrogation video/audio tapes
and resulting written transcripts and summary;
4. Copy of Ridgefield Police precinct daily
audio/video interrogation log, directly or listing for
September 26, 1999, and for the entire month of
September 1999;
5. Copy of logs and/or record indicating [the] name of
individuals who participated in the recording, editing,
and/or transcribing of the video/audio tape of my in-
A-3085-16T3
5
custody interrogation which occurred on September
26, 1999, during the hours of 5:00-11:30 p.m.;
6. Copy of daily log of video/audio tape conducted
inside Ridgefield Police (council chambers) and/or
any other of [sic] its facilities during the weeks
preceding and following September 26, 1999;
7. Copy of any and all regulation enacted under
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118, or other statute or regulation
that carries the force of law, [and policy or procedure]
requir[ing] the creation or retention of in-custody
interrogation video-audio tape covering [the] day in
question 09-26-99. Alternatively, certification by
Record Custodian or competent person, affirming
under oath that Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office
was not obliged or required by any regulation, policy
or procedure, to produce and/or maintain during [the]
year 1999 in-custody interrogation audio-video tape
and related government record.
[(Emphasis added)].
The RPD denied the request because they did not possess the records requested.
About two weeks later, plaintiff submitted the exact same request to the
BCPO. Shortly thereafter, the BCPO denied plaintiff's request, asserting that it
did not possess responsive records to request numbers one and three through six.
With respect to request number two, the BCPO replied that it possessed an
eighteen-page written report by Det. Anzilotti, which described a September 26,
1999 interview, but that it was exempt from disclosure, as it constituted a
"criminal investigatory record" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. Plaintiff's
A-3085-16T3
6
attorney acknowledged receipt of this report as item fifty-five in the BCPO's
discovery inventory from July 2000. With respect to the denial of request
number seven, the BCPO explained that its records custodians are not required
to conduct research under OPRA.
Two weeks later, plaintiff mailed his notice of motion for an Order to
Show Cause (OTSC) with a verified complaint pertaining to the RPD and the
BCPO's denial of his OPRA and common law request for the records and
audiotape pertaining to his in-custody interrogation. Despite the court's receipt
of his complaint, it was never "filed" due to procedural deficiencies.
2. 2016 OPRA/Common Law Wedding Videotape Request
On August 15, 2016, plaintiff submitted another OPRA and common law
request to the BCPO, seeking the:
"unedited-original wedding video tape" . . . plus any
and all record[s] and related minutes in [BCPO's]
possession pertaining to [the] seizure, storage, chain
of custody manipulation, and/or management of this
un-edited original wedding video tape seized . . . on
September 16, 1999.
A week later, the BCPO denied plaintiff's request, citing the "criminal
investigatory records" exemption of OPRA because a civilian made the tape,
which was not required to be made or maintained, and was being held by a law
enforcement agency in conjunction with a criminal investigation. N.J.S.A.
A-3085-16T3
7
47:1A-1.1. BCPO further explained that the remainder of the request for records
was denied because those records also constituted exempt criminal investigatory
records. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1:1. Finally, BCPO asserted that plaintiff, through
discovery, already possessed a copy of the Seizure of Evidence report, which he
identified as potentially responsive and even attached it to his request.
In response, plaintiff filed an OTSC and verified complaint against the
OAG and the BCPO, alleging violations of OPRA and the common law right to
access, and seeking assignment of counsel. About six weeks before oral
argument, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to reactivate his previous "lawsuit"
with respect to his 2014 OPRA requests.
3. Court Order/Decision
On November 30, 2016, Judge Mizdol issued two orders: one, denying
plaintiff’s request to reactivate his 2014 OPRA/Common Law Confession
Request from the RPD and the BCPO; the other, denying his 2016
OPRA/Common Law Wedding Videotape Request to the BCPO and the OAG.
The judge issued a single written statement of reasons detailing her factual
findings and legal conclusions as to both orders.
With respect to the wedding videotape request, the judge reasoned that
although the videotape was a government record under OPRA, it was exempt
A-3085-16T3
8
from disclosure because it was already provided to plaintiff via criminal
discovery. With respect to the other portion of the wedding videotape request –
"any and all record[s] and related minutes in [BCPO's] possession pertaining to
[the] seizure, storage, chain of custody, manipulation and/or management of this
un-edited[ ]original wedding video[tape] seized" – the judge found that the
request was overly broad under OPRA. N.J. Builders Ass'n v. N.J. Council on
Affordable Hous., 390 N.J. Super. 166, 177 (App. Div. 2007).
In finding that the wedding videotape was not required to be released
under the common law, the judge found that in addition to having been in
possession of the videotape for nearly sixteen years, plaintiff had "no legitimate
interest" under Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 67-68 (2008), in the
videotape. She reasoned that due to his three previously unsuccessful PCR
petitions – raising, among other things, the same arguments with respect to the
authenticity of the wedding videotape – plaintiff had no reasonable chance to
overturn his convictions.
Judge Mizdol next addressed plaintiff’s 2014 OPRA/Common Law
Confession Request. She found that five (numbers one, three, four, five and six)
of the seven categories of items requested did not exist; thus BCPO could not
produce them. As for item number seven, the information sought required "legal
A-3085-16T3
9
research or certifications of facts," which the BCPO was not required to do under
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. See Burnett v. Cty. of Gloucester, 415 N.J. Super. 506, 515
(App. Div. 2010). And for the remaining request, item number two, the judge
found that because the report by Det. Anzilotti detailing the interrogation of
plaintiff was already provided to plaintiff with his criminal discovery, the BCPO
was not required to give it to him again. Bart v. City of Paterson Hous. Auth.,
403 N.J. Super. 609, 618 (App. Div. 2008). The judge also denied plaintiff’s
request for the report under the common law for the same reasons she applied in
denying the wedding videotape request.
Plaintiff's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, and the
BCPO's cross-motion to preclude plaintiff from making future OPRA and
common law requests pertaining to his 2001 murder conviction absent the court's
approval was granted. In her written opinion, Judge Mizdol, relying upon Rule
4:49-2, D'Atria v, D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990), and
Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010), explained
plaintiff failed to "demonstrate that the court acted in an arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable manner or failed to consider the probative value of evidence
presented. Further, there is no new or additional information provided by
plaintiff that he could not have provided on his first application for relief."
A-3085-16T3
10
In granting the BCPO’s cross-motion, the judge, citing Rosenblum v.
Borough of Closter, 333 N.J. Super. 385, 390-97 (App. Div. 2000), exercised
her inherent authority to prevent the filing of frivolous litigation. She reasoned
that it was necessary for plaintiff to obtain prior approval to file complaints
because of his "history of repetitive and unsuccessful [PCR] applications" and
"repeated motions . . . alleging errors of law enforcement, the judiciary, the
BCPO, and his counsel without merit."
B.
A-4501-16
1. 2016 OPRA/Common Law Audiotape Request
On November 1, 2016, plaintiff submitted an OPRA and common law
request to the BCPO, seeking a "copy of [the] un-edited original" micro-cassette
audiotape, admitted as evidence in the 2001 murder trial. The audiotape, taken
from the victim's answering machine, recorded a conversation between plaintiff
and the victim. Plaintiff additionally requested "any and all record[s] and related
minutes in [the BCPO's] possession[,] pertaining to the seizure, storage, chain
of custody, manipulation and/or management" of the audiotape.
About a week later, the BCPO denied plaintiff's request. With respect to
the audiotape, the agency replied that plaintiff was already provided a copy of
A-3085-16T3
11
the recording and, accordingly, was not entitled to receive another copy. As fo r
all records related to the audiotape's chain of custody, the BCPO responded:
[T]he micro-cassette tape was provided to this office
by Norma Rosario. Item 39, Receipt of Property
Report, Item 90, Statement of Norma Rosario Taken
on 12/9/99, Item 91, Interview Report of Norma
Rosario, and Item 92, Statement of Norma Rosario
taken on 2/10/00, listed in the attached discovery
receipt are responsive to your request. You previously
received all of these items and a requester is not
entitled to obtain a record that he already received.
The BCPO also asserted that the audiotape and chain of custody documents were
exempt as a "public record" from disclosure under OPRA's definition of a
criminal investigatory record.
The BCPO also denied the entirety of plaintiff's request under common
law because plaintiff did not "identif[y] [his] interest in obtaining the records[]"
and thus, the custodian could not conduct the necessary balancing of interests to
determine if plaintiff was entitled to the records sought.
Almost three weeks later, plaintiff forwarded an OPRA request to the
OAG for a copy of the same audiotape it sought from the BCPO. The request
was denied because the audiotape was not made, maintained, kept on file or
received by the OAG.
A-3085-16T3
12
Plaintiff then filed an order to show cause and verified complaint against
the OAG and the BCPO, seeking a copy of the audiotape and transcript of the
tape.
2. Court Order/Decision
On April 11, 2017, Judge Mizdol issued an order denying plaintiff's
request for these records pursuant to OPRA and the common law right of access.
She set forth her reasoning in an oral decision following oral argument, and
issued a written decision that same day. As to the OAG, the judge denied the
request finding "credible the OAG record custodian['s] certification that no such
responsive records exist in their possession." Despite agreeing with plaintiff
that the audiotape and transcript were government records under OPRA based
upon N. Jersey Media Grp. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 223 N.J. 553 (2015), the judge
denied his request because he had already received the requested records in his
criminal trial discovery. She credited the BCPO investigator's certification that
plaintiff's criminal trial counsel received the sought-after records.
As for plaintiff's allegation that he does not possess an original of the
"unedited" audiotape, the judge was unmoved, stating he "had the opportunity
to inspect the original version of the document and/or the [audiotape] during
[the criminal] discovery some 16 years ago." She also noted, "[o]n three
A-3085-16T3
13
separate occasions, the issues of evidence tampering and prosecutorial
misconduct were presented to the [t]rial [c]ourt in [PCR] [a]pplications. On
each occasion, the [t]rial [c]ourt gave no merit to those claims, and the Appellate
Division affirmed each denial." In sum, Judge Mizdol determined that plaintiff's
"exploitation" of OPRA in an attempt to "relitigate alleged evidentiary issues
from his criminal trial" would not advance OPRA's purpose to "ensure an
informed citizenry."
The same reasoning applied to denying plaintiff's common law request for
the documents, according to Judge Mizdol. Plaintiff was not entitled to the
records because he had "no legitimate interest" in the replication of them due to
his three previous unsuccessful PCR appeals, which argued substantially the
same points challenging authenticity of the audiotape, as well as the videotape. 1
1
After filing his notice of appeal, plaintiff filed a motion for reversal of Judge
Mizdol's April 11, 2017 order, and "granting of" his request for the audiotape.
He thereafter filed a motion to remand this appeal due to an incomplete
transcript as a result of inaudible portions of the April 11 transcript. On
October 16, this court denied plaintiff's motion, but partially remanded to the
Law Division to correct the oral argument transcript, which was unable to
document plaintiff's argument due to his telephonic appearance. After oral
argument was renewed on November 3, Judge Mizdol ordered that plaintiff
receive the corrected transcript at no cost to him and affirmed her April 11
order.
A-3085-16T3
14
III
In A-4501-16, plaintiff raises the following arguments:
POINT I
LAW DIVISION'S APRIL 11, 2017 JUDGEMENT
AFFIRMING BCPO'S NOV. 9, 2017 DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF'S NOV. 1 2017 GOVERNMENT
RECORD REQUEST, FOR "COPY OF UN-EDITED-
ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT RECORD DESCRIBED
IN COURT AS "'S-3' IS A PAPER EVIDENCE BAG
LABELED NUMBER 2, FOR OUR CASE, CH99-31,
THIS BAG CONTAINS A RADIO SHACK MICRO-
CASSETTE TAPE THAT IS LABELED GLADYS,
AND IT IS DATED 12/9/99. THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF INITIALS ON IT ALSO, IS
FACTUALLY ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY,
CAPRICIOUS, UNREASONABLE AND IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AS A WHOLE.
THEREBY, DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF HIS
RIGHT OF ACCESS UNDER OPEN
GOVERNMENT RECORDS ACT (OPRA), [N.J.S.A.]
47:1A-1-13, AND COMMON LAW RIGHT OF
ACCESS.
A. DEFENDANT, BCPO'S ASSERTED GROUND
"EXEMPT FROM RELEASE AS A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATORY RECORD" FOR ITS DENIAL OF
REQUESTED "COPY OF UNEDITED-ORIGINAL[
]GOVERNMENT RECORD DESCRIBED IN
COURT AS FOLLOWS: "'S-3', IS A PAPER
EVIDENCE BAG LABELED NUMBER 102. FOR
OUR CASE, CH99-31. THIS BAG CONTAINS A
RADIO SHACK MICRO-CASSETTE TAPE THAT
IS LABELED GLADYS, AND IT IS DATED 12/9/99.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF INITIALS ON IT,”
A-3085-16T3
15
ALSO WAS REJECTED BY JUDGE APRIL 11, 2017
FINDING.
B. LAW DIVISION’S APRIL 11, 2017 FINDING:
"PLAINTIFF IS PRECLUDED UNDER OPRA
FROM COMPELLING DISCLOSURE OF
DOCUMENTS PLAINTIFF ALREADY HAS IN HIS
POSSESSION. THUS, PLAINTIFF IS NOT
ENTITLED TO DISCLOSURE" [AND] IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
[(emphasis omitted).]
In A-4501-16, plaintiff raises the following arguments:
POINT I
JUDGE'S 11-30-17 AND 02-13-17 JUDGMENTS,
I.E., FACTUAL FINDING[S] AFFIRMING BCPO'S
AUG. 25, 2016 DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S AUG. 15,
2016 GOVERNMENT RECORD REQUEST, FOR
"COPY OF UNEDITED- ORIGINAL WEDDING
VIDEO TAPE" ARE ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS,
UNREASONABLE AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD AS A WHOLE. THEREBY, DEPRIVING
PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF ACCESS UNDER
OPEN GOVERNMENT RECORD ACT ("OPRA"),
[N.J.S.A.] 47:1A-1-13, AND COMMON LAW
RIGHT OF ACCESS.
A. DEFENDANT, BERGEN COUNTY
PROSECUTOR['S] OFFICE (HERE-IN-AFTER
"BCPO") ONLY ASSERTED GROUND FOR
DENIAL OF REQUESTED "COPY OF UNEDITED-
ORIGINAL WEDDING VIDEO TAPE," I.E.,
"EXEMPT FROM RELEASE AS A CRIMINAL
A-3085-16T3
16
INVESTIGATORY RECORD," WAS REJECTED BY
JUDGE FINDING: "THE WEDDING VIDEO DOES
NOT QUALIFY AS EXEMPT CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATORY RECORD . . . , "WARRANTING
GRANTING OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDING, IN [THE]
BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
B. DEFENDANT BCPO FAILED TO CARRY ITS
BURDEN OF PROVING [THE] JUDGE'S
FACTUALLY IRRATIONAL FINDING:
"PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS THAT HE ALREADY HAS IN
HIS POSSESSION," BUT NOT RAISED ON BCPO'S
AUG. 25, 2016 DENIAL AND DEFENDANT
BCPO['S] TURNING [OVER] OF TAMPERED OR
COMPOSITE COPY OF REQUESTED "UNEDITED-
ORIGINAL WEDDING VIDEO TAPE"
CONSTITUTED DENIAL OF ACCESS IN
VIOLATION OF [N.J.S.A.] 47:1A ET. SEQ., AND
COMMON LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS.
C. JUDGE'S FINDING: "ORIGINAL". . .
"UNEDITED" . . . VERSIONS OF THE EVIDENCE
DO NOT EXIST" IS CONTRADICTED BY HER
OWN FINDING[S.]" "THE WEDDING VIDEO IS
MAINTAINED AND KEPT ON FILE BY THE
BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
[EMPHASIS ADDED]." THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER
RAISED ON BCPO'S AUG. 25 2016 DENIAL,
WHICH, AS A MATTER OF FACT,
CONTRADICTED THIS COURT'S IRRATIONAL
FINDING AFFIRMING: "THE REQUESTED
"[]COPY OF UNEDITED-ORIGINAL WEDDING
TAPE IS IN STORAGE . . . FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THIS RESPONSE, I SHALL ASSUME THE THAT
THE VIDEOTAPE IS STILL IN THE FILE AND
UNDAMAGED."
A-3085-16T3
17
D. DURING NOV. 30, 2016 ORAL ARGUMENT,
ALTHOUGH [THE] COURT'S OCT. 27, 2016
SCHEDULING ORDER INDICATED "ORAL
ARGUMENT ON NOVEMBER 20, 2016, THERE
WAS NO ORAL ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE
REQUESTED IN-CUSTODY INTERROGATION
AUDIO-VIDEO TAPE, INSTEAD, JUDGE MIZDOL
IRRATIONALLY, CAPRICIOUSLY, AND
UNREASONABLY DISMISSED THIS MATTER
WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD,
EVEN DISMISSING RIDGEFIELD POLICE
DEPARTMENT WHO NEVER FILED PAPERS IN
OPPOSITION ADHERING TO [THE] COURT'S
OCT. 27, 2016 SCHEDULING ORDER.
POINT II
COURT'S 11-30-16 AND 02-13-17 DISMISSAL OF
RIDGEFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS
BASED ON AN OBJECTIVELY INCORRECT,
IRRATIONAL AND UNREASONABLE BASIS,
WHEREBY, THIS DEFENDANT NEVER
RESPONDED [TO THE] ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, THEREBY, DEPRIVING THE COURT OF
MEANINGFUL RECORD NECESSARY FOR
OBJECTIVE REVIEW OF CASE MERIT.
[(emphasis omitted).]
Having considered plaintiff's contentions, we conclude they are without
sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Mizdol in
A-3085-16T3
18
connection with her written and oral opinions in both appeals. We add the
following brief comments.
"OPRA provides for ready access to government records by the citizens
of this State." Burnett v. Cty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 421-22 (2009) (citing
Mason, 196 N.J. at 64-65). "The purpose of OPRA 'is to maximize public
knowledge about public affairs in order to ensure an informed citizenry and to
minimize the evils inherent in a secluded process.'" Times of Trenton Publ'g
Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Cmty. Dev. Corp., 183 N.J. 519, 535 (2005) (quoting
Asbury Park Press v. Ocean Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 374 N.J. Super. 312, 329
(Law Div. 2004)). Accordingly, OPRA directs that "all government records
shall be subject to public access unless exempt," and "any limitations on the
right of access . . . shall be construed in favor of the public's right of access."
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. Yet, a governmental entity is not required to reproduce
records already in the requestor's possession. Bart, 403 N.J. Super. at 618 ("It
is undisputed that [plaintiff] . . . had within his possession a copy of the
[document] at issue; indeed, he attached a copy to the complaint he filed with
the Council. He could not have been denied access to the document, . . . if he
already had the document he sought.")
A-3085-16T3
19
We review a trial judge's legal conclusions concerning access to public
records under OPRA de novo. Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP v. N.J. Dep't of
Law and Pub. Safety, 421 N.J. Super. 489, 497 (App. Div. 2011). We will not
disturb factual findings as long as they are supported by adequate, substantial
and credible evidence. See Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc., 110 N.J.
464, 475 (1988).
Under common law, to constitute a public record, three elements must be
met: (1) the document be a written memorial; (2) the document be made by a
public officer; and (3) the officer be authorized by law to make it. Bergen Cty.
Imp. Auth. v. N. Jersey. Media Group, Inc., 370 N.J. Super. 504, 518 (App. Div.
2004). To gain access to materials under the common law right of access: "(1)
'the person seeking access must establish an interest in the subject matter of the
material'; and (2) 'the citizen's right to access must be balanced against the
State's interest in preventing disclosure.'" Mason, 196 N.J. at 67 (quoting
Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36, 50 (1997)).
Guided by these principles, we see no reason to disturb Judge Mizdol's
orders. Based upon her credible factual findings, the judge correctly dismissed
plaintiff's complaints as there was no basis under OPRA and common law
entitling him to the requested documents, especially the videotape and audiotape
A-3085-16T3
20
that were already provided during the prosecution of the criminal charges
against him.
Affirmed.
A-3085-16T3
21