[brief] Providing a log with the subject or a description of all of the Provost’s emails, particularly those that are deemed privileged, would by definition risk revealing the existence of sensitive matters that would not otherwise be subject to disclosure.  Take, for example, the Provost’s responsibility to address student discipline, where the identities of students would not even be subject to acknowledgement under OPRA or federal --- 4  There is also nothing to stop a requestor with an animus toward a particular public official from exploiting this to satisfy a personal agenda. law.  (Da43-44).  This is to say nothing of requests implicating emails sent or received by heads of law enforcement agencies across this State, responsible for the oversight of (sometimes highly confidential or sensitive) criminal investigations involving inflammatory allegations; confidential informants; grand jury secrecy; internal affairs matters; and more.  A log would also readily permit an OPRA requestor to circumvent this court’s recognition that there exists an expectation of privacy in individuals “who call or are called by public officials. ”  Gannett v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. at 217-18; accord N. Jersey Newspapers Co. v. Passaic Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 127 N.J. 9, 16-18 (1992).  Requiring an agency to create a Vaughn index that effectively monitors each and every keystroke taken by a public official throughout the day threatens not only the privacy of these third-party individuals by exposing their identities or interests to public scrutiny, it also interferes with the ability of the official to deal fairly and effectively with the public at large.  Indeed, allowing even the best-intentioned requestor insight into what type of business an employee is handling at every moment of the day—whether that includes confidential student discussions, highly-sensitized law enforcement business, delicate discussions surrounding policy-making, or even attorney-client privileged interactions—invites a level of intrusion into the public sphere that our courts have never before countenanced.  The ability to redact or withhold emails or even to assert substantial disruption is not enough to tip the scales.  As to the former, as the Court recognized in *Paff v. Galloway Township*, redacting emails requires not only considerable time, energy, and care, but also raises important issues of privacy and other privileges that “must be addressed. ”  229 N.J. at 357.  As to the latter, while an agency may assert that a request would substantially disrupt agency operations under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5, there is nothing to prevent a requestor from narrowing their request to a single day of emails, or a few days, as [...] did here, but then resubmitting that request daily or weekly.  Multiplied by requests for all employees for days, weeks, or even months, it is not difficult to conceive of how an agency could soon become overwhelmed by responding to a single newly-minted category of appropriate requests, while still attempting to balance other responsibilities.  In short, OPRA’s existing “outs” do not compensate for the trial court’s relaxation of one of its most seminal requirements.