Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): standing against the need for confidentiality before proceeding to an automatic in camera review of the materials”). Indeed, the court might decide that releasing the records in a redacted form while editing out any privileged or confidential subject matter is appropriate. South Jersey Publishing, supra, 124 N.J. at 488-89, 591 A.2d 921. However, a “mere summary of the record is inadequate * * * where a more complete record reflecting the underlying facts is available and the plaintiffs need therefore outweighs any threat disclosure may pose to the public or private interest.” Id. at 489, 591 A.2d 921. III We first observe that plaintiff has a sufficient interest under the common law to request access to public records. See South Jersey Publishing, supra, 124 N.J. at 496, 591 A.2d 921 (<HOLDING>); Shuttleworth v. City of Camden, 258 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that newspaper had a sufficient interest under the common law to request access to minutes and related documents of governmental meeting held in executive session (B) holding that council discussion in executive session of whether to appeal did not violate the open meeting law given that ultimate decision to adopt ordinance to meet the objections of trial court was made in public (C) recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents (D) holding that the first amendment right of public access does not extend to nonjudicial documents compiled during an executive branch investigation (E) holding that there is no first amendment or common law right of access to documents which played no role in a judicial decision
Output (English): holding that there is no first amendment or common law right of access to documents which played no role in a judicial decision