Doe v. Rutgers

466 N.J.Super. 14

245 A.3d 261

Chris DOE¹ , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.RUTGERS, the STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, and Casey Woods in his Official Capacity as the OPRA Administrator and Records Custodian of Rutgers University, Defendants-Respondents.

DOCKET NO. A-5285-18T2

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued October 28, 2020

Decided January 12, 2021

Jamie Epstein, Collingswood, argued the cause for appellant.

Michael O'B. Boldt, Morristown, argued the cause for respondents (McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, attorneys; Michael O'B. Boldt, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Alvarez² , Sumners and Geiger.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SUMNERS, JR., J.A.D.

Defendant Rutgers University, through its records custodian defendant Casey Woods, denied plaintiff Chris Doe's requests under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, for various records, including his own Rutgers graduate student records, and for attorney's fees and costs (collectively "attorney's fees"). Following an order to show cause hearing to determine whether defendants' denial violated OPRA, the trial court agreed with defendants' action and issued an order dismissing the requests as overbroad.

We reverse the court's order that plaintiff is not entitled to his own student records subject to redaction of personally identifiable information (PII) and remand to the court to determine if plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees related to the release of those records. We also reverse and remand the court's order that plaintiff is not allowed attorney's fees related to defendants' voluntary release of information pertaining to copies of specific university professors' and administrators' disclosable employment records. The remand is to allow the court the opportunity to issue findings of facts and conclusions of law regarding plaintiff's entitlement to attorney's fees. The court shall also determine if plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees related to the student records that we conclude he is entitled to receive. We affirm all other aspects of the court's order.

I

Plaintiff, a former student at the State University's Graduate School of Business, Newark campus, submitted OPRA requests to Woods, Interim OPRA Administrator and Records Custodian. On March 13, 2018, he sought the following:

[Request One]. Any and all documents, whether in electronic or paper media, which make reference to [Chris Doe or Chris Doe's initials] between 1/1/2017 to present. Documents requested include, but are not limited to: (a) financial records (requested immediately pursuant to [N.J.S.A.] 47:1A-5 ) such as bills, invoices, receipts, ledger accounts, payments, both sides of canceled checks, etc.; (b) academic records such as records kept by staff who provided [Chris Doe] educational services, transcripts, notes, letters, emails, reports, tests, etc.; (c) administrative records such as health records, discipline records, etc.; (d) communications records such as emails, memos, text messages, voice mail, letters, etc., sent or received by staff, administrators, contractors or agents of the University. Email search: where the sender or recipients is a staff, administrator, contractor or agent of the University and the body or subject of the email refers to [Chris Doe or Chris Doe's legal name initials or Chris Doe's student number].

[Request Two]. Regarding each employee listed below, the following information is requested: title, position, salary, payroll record, length of service, data contained in the information which disclose conformity with specific experiential, educational or medical qualifications required for employment, date of separation (if any) and the reason and the employee's employment contract (which is requested immediately pursuant to [N.J.S.A.] 47:1A-5 )[:] (a) Dr. Edward Bonder, Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts and Sciences – Department of Biological Sciences; (b) Dr. Wayne Eastman, Professor[,] Rutgers Business School – Supply Chain Management; (c) Dr. Francis Bartkowski, Professor[,] Faculty [of] Arts and Sciences – Department of English; (d) Dr. Kinna Perry, Associate Dean of Graduate School-Newark; (e) Dr. Kyle Farmbry, Dean of the Graduate School-Newark.

[Request Three]. Any and all documents or emails which refer to Record Request Information Item[s] [One] and [Two] above either in the body of the email or document or in its attachment.

[Request Four]. Any and all records created including metadata in responding to this OPRA request.

Defendants replied that same day that Request Two records would be provided "as soon as is practicable," but the other requests were denied because they were "overly broad" and did not adequately "describe the documents sought." To obtain his academic transcript that was sought in Request One, plaintiff was directed to a university website.

Three days later, plaintiff submitted another OPRA request (Request Five) seeking documents in electronic or paper media of "[t]he disciplinary case file of any and all Rutgers Newark Graduate [s]tudent charged with a separable offense from 1/1/2013 to present" but "with all [PII] redacted." Defendants denied that request on March 28 as "overly broad" and requiring research by the custodian.

Within a few days of the original request, and before receiving the Request Two records that defendants advised would be provided, plaintiff filed an order to show cause and verified complaint in the Law Division to obtain all the sought-after records. After the court entered an order to show cause, plaintiff filed a second amended verified complaint. Defendants provided the records responsive to Request Two shortly thereafter: forty-five days after the request was initially made. The court subsequently issued an order and written opinion denying plaintiff's OPRA requests for unprovided records and attorney's fees.

II

We first point out, with the exception of attorney's fees, we reject plaintiff's contention that a remand is necessary because the trial court failed to comply with Rule 1:7-4(a), which requires the court to set forth its factual findings and conclusions of law dismissing his OPRA requests. Relying upon MAG Ent., LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534, 549, 868 A.2d 1067 (App. Div. 2005), the court found that plaintiff made " ‘[w]holesale requests’ for generalized information to be analyzed and compiled by the responding agency [that were] outside of OPRA's scope." Plaintiff did not comply with defendants' request by narrowing the emails sought by "content and/or subject," "specific date or range of [transmission] dates," and "identify[ing] the sender and[/]or recipient thereof." Finding the demand was inconsistent with OPRA's legislative intent, the court explained plaintiff's requests were not "well defined," thereby requiring Woods to make an impermissibly subjective analysis to determine what records were sought. Paff v. Galloway Twp. (Paff II), 229 N.J. 340, 355, 162 A.3d 1046 (2017).

III

"OPRA provides for ready access to government records by the citizens of this State." Burnett v. Cnty. of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 421-22, 968 A.2d 1151 (2009) (citing Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 64-65, 951 A.2d 1017 (2008) ). Government records are defined as

any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image processed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its official business by any officer, commission, agency or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof, or that has been received in the course of his or its official business by any such officer, commission, agency or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof. The terms shall not include inter-agency or intra-agency advisory, consultative, or deliberative material.

[ N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 (emphasis added).]

Our "overarching public policy" favors "a citizen's right of access." Courier News v. Hunterdon Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., 358 N.J. Super. 373, 383, 817 A.2d 1017 (App. Div. 2003) (citing N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 ). 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. OPRA only applies to records "made, maintained or kept on file in the course of [a public agency's] official business[,]" as well as any document "received in the course of [the agency's] official business[.]" N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

Among the records specifically exempted under OPRA are those kept by "any public institution of higher education, ... deemed to be privileged and confidential[,]" such as "information concerning student records or grievance or disciplinary proceedings against a student to the extent disclosure would reveal the identity of the student." Ibid. (emphasis added). Also exempt are "any federal law, federal regulation, or federal order[,]" N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1, and any information that is protected by any "federal law[,] federal regulation[,] or federal order[,]" N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9(a). We review de novo the trial court's legal conclusions regarding plaintiff's OPRA requests. Paff v. Galloway Twp. (Paff I), 444 N.J. Super. 495, 501, 134 A.3d 42 (App. Div. 2016) (citation omitted).

Both parties rely on our decision in L.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist., (L.R. I), 452 N.J. Super. 56, 95, 171 A.3d 227 (App. Div. 2017), affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court, L.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist. (L.R. II), 238 N.J. 547, 550, 213 A.3d 912 (2019) (Patterson, J., concurring), where we ruled that a request under OPRA, the New Jersey Pupil Records Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19, and the ...