NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A

- 3460

- 18T 1 BAFFI SIMMONS and AFRICAN AMERICAN DATA AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE ( AADARI) , Plaintiffs

- R espondents ,

v. WENDY MERCADO , CITY OF MILLVILLE, and CITY OF MILLVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants

- A pp ella nts.

____________ _ _ _ ________ _____ _____

Submitted May 12, 2 020

– Decided J une 11, 2020 Before Judges Fisher, Accurso and Rose. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, C umberland County, Docket No. L

0712

- 18

. Brock D . Russell, attorney for appellants

. Rotimi A

. Owoh , attorney for respondent s . The opinion of the court was delivered by
FISHER , P. J.A.D. APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
J une 11 , 2020 APPELLATE DIVISIONA

- 3460

- 18T1 2 In this appeal, we consider an order that held defendants City of Millville, City of Millville Police Department, and Wendy Mercado, were

r equired to provide plaintiffs Baffi Simmons and the African American Data and Research Institute records pursuant to plaintiffs' OPRA 1 request

. Specifically, plaintiffs sought copies of the following that were issued by the Millville P olice D epartment fro m January 2017 to the date of the request :

 "DWI/DUI complaints and summonses";

 "drug possession complaints and summonses";

 the department's " [a] rrest [ l ] istings"; and

 "drug paraphernalia complaints and summons." Defendants produced redacted records that allegedly satisfied the request for the arrest listings, but as for the other three categories, defendants asserted "there are no records responsive to your request" and advised that "[c]ourt documents can be requested through the NJ Judiciary website ."
T he trial judge summarily ruled in plaintiffs ' favor and , because plaintiffs prevailed, awarded attorney's fees. Defendants appeal, primarily arguing the judge e rred in f inding these documents to be government records within their possession because Millville police officers merely input

1 Open Public Records Act , N.J.S.A. 47:1A

- 1 to

- 13

.A

- 3460

- 18T1 3 information into electronic forms created by others and maintained by the judiciary. We agree with defendants and reverse. The record reveals that after receiving a response from defendants that
t he records sought were maintained by the judiciary and not Millville or its police department , plaintiffs filed in October 2018 a verified complaint . They also applied for an order , which , when entered , required defendants to show cause why they did not violate OPRA by denying plaintiffs access to the requested DWI/DUI, drug possession , and drug paraphernalia complaints and

summonses. In responding to the order to show cause , defendants submitted the aff idavit of a Millville police lieutenant who asserted the d epartment does not maintain DWI/DUI, drug possession, and drug paraphernalia complaints and summons records because they are in the possession of the Millville Municipal Court , which places those re cords under the aegis of the judiciary

. That is, a ccording to defendants , once those documents are electronically filed through the State ' s Electronic Complaint Disposition Record ( eCDR ) system, defendants no longer have access to those records and are no longer the ir custodian. Defendants also argued that even if they had access to eCDR, they would be unable to produce the requested records because the system does notA

- 3460

- 18T1 4 allow for the usage of a particular charge or complaint type as a search parameter. 2
Th e judge found plaintiffs were entitled to the requested records from defendants . In rejecting defendant s' argument that they no longer "maintained" the records, the judge observed that "whether or not [defendants] maintain [the records]

. . . [is] not a standard under OPRA." The judge did, however, provide defendants with additional time to both ascertain and supplement the record with proof a bout whether they we re able to access eCDR for the complaints and summonses requested. Defendants thereafter fil ed a supplemental brief, conced ing "the Millville Police Department has access to eCDR ." Notwithstanding, defendants argued: (1) the complaints and summonses requested by plaintiffs are not records required by law to be maintained by Millville for any per iod of time; and (2) requiring defendants to search and provide the requested records from eCDR

– of which defendants are not the custodian

– exceed s OPRA's intended reach. Defendants argued they would have to review near ly 5,000 arrest card files from th e time period in question, identify those that included a drug possession or drug paraphernalia charge, obtain the information necessary

2 Despite this position, plaintiffs were provided with redacted records responsive to the request for DWI/DUI complaints and summonses.A

- 3460

- 18T1 5 to conduct a search of eCDR, and then locate the corresponding records in eCDR. The trial judge found that because the Millville Police Department has access to the system that contains the records requested by plaintiffs , defendants violated OPRA by not turning the records over. The judge entered a conforming order on January 3, 2019, and invited plaintiffs to submit a certification of services in support of their request for counsel fees. Later, the judge denied defendants' reconsideration motion, which emphasized defendants' argument s that the requested documents are not government records but are court records mainta ined by the judiciary and that the ir ability to access the records does not mean th ey are the custodian of those records obligated to comply with an OPRA request . The judge rejected these arguments and denied reconsideration by order entered on February 1 8, 2019

. The following month, the judge considered the parties' submissions on plaintiffs' request for counsel fees, and, on March 22, 2019, ordered defendants to pay plaintiffs $5424 in fees. The judge also stay ed the order pending appeal. In appealing, defendants reprise their arguments that the complaints and

summonses sought by plaintiffs exist in electronic form , a re maintained by the judiciary, and in its custody, not th eir custody . We agree. To explain, we firstA

- 3460

- 18T1 6 briefly review OPRA's requirements and how OPRA has been applied in similar settings. The Legislature's purpose in enacting OPRA was "to promote transparency in the operation of government." Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers , 210 N.J. 531, 541 (2012). To fulfill that purpose, OPRA re quir es that "government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with certain exceptions, for the protection of the public interest, and any limitations on the right of acces s . . . shall be construed in favor of the public's right of access." N.J.S.A. 47:1A

- 1 ; see also N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst , 229 N.J. 541, 555 (2017). The statute defines "government record" broadly , but also excludes twenty

- one categories of items from the definition. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A

- 1.1 ; Mason v. City of Hoboken , 196 N.J. 51, 6 5 (2008) . A "government record" is defined to include " any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image p rocessed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound

recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof [.] " N.J.S.A. 47:1A

- 1.1. To be considered a " government record, " the item must be made, maintained, kept on file, or received " in the course of his or its official business by anyA

- 3460

- 18T1 7 officer, commission, agency or authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof, including subordinate boards thereof

. " Ibid.
D espite this strong interest in transparency, OPRA is "not intended [to be] a research tool [that] litigants may use to force government officials to identify and siphon useful information

. " MAG Entm't, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control , 375 N. J. Super. 534, 546 (App. Div. 2005)

. OPRA instead operates to make identifiable government records "readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination." N.J.S.A. 47:1A

- 1. Accordingly, OPRA requires a party requesting access to a public record to specifically describe the record sought

. Gannett N.J. Partners, LP v. Cty. of Middlesex , 379 N.J. Super. 205, 212 (App. Div. 2005); N.J.S.A. 47:1A

- 5(f) . A
proper OPRA request must identify with reasonable clarity the desired documents, and a party canno t satisfy this requirement by simply requesting all of an agency's documents. Bent v. Twp . of Stafford Police Dep ' t, Custodian of Records , 381 N.J. Super. 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005). And OPRA only allows requests for access to record s

– not requests for information. MAG Entm't , 375 N.J. Super. at 546

- 4 7

. OPRA does not require a records custodian "to conduct research among its records

. . . and correlate data from various government records in the custodian's possession." Ibid. OPRA also imposes on publ ic agencies "theA

- 3460

- 18T1 8 burden of proving that the denial of access is authorized by law , " N.J.S.A.
47:1A

- 6 , which is not satisfied by reliance on "conclusory and generalized allegations of exemptions [ , ] " but requires instead the specific basis for withholding th e requested documents , Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth. , 423 N.J. Super. 140, 162 (App. Div. 2011)

. Under this framework, a "government record" is subject to disclosure unless a public
agency can make a "clear showing" that one of the statute 's listed exemptions is applicable. N. Jersey Media Grp. , 229 N.J. at 5 55. That presupposes, of course, that the requested record is a "government record." And all we have said presupposes that the part y to whom th e request was sent is the custodian of the government record sought. We agree with defendants that the manner in which the requested complaint

- summonses we re created demonstrates they are not government records in their possession but are records in the c ustody of the judiciary. While it may be local police who input the information that triggers the
process, the final product is governed by other forces and the resulting product is maintained by others. The production of a complaint

- summons comes about t hrough use of an electronic form created by the Administrative Office of the Courts . This process generates and lodges the complaint in the judiciary ' s computerizedA

- 3460

- 18T1 9 case management syste m . Rule s 3:2

- 2 and 3:2

- 3 require the use of certain forms to generat e a criminal complaint on either a summons, known as the
CDR

- 1, or on a warrant, known as the CDR

- 2. When intending to generate a criminal complaint , a law enforcement officer must utilize the judiciary ' s computerized case management system and enter information into certain designated fields. O ther sections of th e CDR form s are designated for completion by a judge or judicial officer. In short , while a local law enforcement officer begins the process, it is a judicial officer who retains the final authority as to whether the system will generate a CDR

- 1
or CDR

- 2. We agree with defendants that the manner in which the document is produced demonstrates that it is, in reality, not a government record maint ained by the municipality but a record maintained by the judiciary. Plaintiffs place too much emphasis on how the process that creates the document commences without sufficient consideration for how it ends and where the document ends up. Rule 3:4

- 1(a)(1 ), 3 upon which plaintiffs rely, does not require a different result; the Rule in fact reveals the importance of

3 Rule 3:4

- 1(a)(1) provides that " [a] law enforcement officer shall take a person who was arrested without a warrant to a police station where a complaint shall be prepared immediately," and further requires that when "issuance of a warrant is authorized by Rule 3:3

- 1(d) . . ., the complaint m ay be prepared on a Complaint

- Warrant (CDR

- 2) form," or "[o]therwise, the complaint shall be prepared on a Complaint

- Summons (CDR

- 1) form."A

- 3460

- 18T1 10 generating a complaint

- summons upon an arrest, not whether it constitutes a municipal record or a judiciary record. To review, w hen a law enforc ement officer makes an arrest without a warrant, the person arrested must be taken to a police station where the arresting officer is to immediately prepare a complaint

. R. 3:4

- 1(a)(1). The Attorney General has directed all law enforcement agencies opera ting under the authority of the laws of th is State to utilize a particular electronic interface system when preparing a complaint. Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2016

- 06 (Oct. 11, 2016). Pursuant to the directive:

T he State Police and AOC have established an interface between the Live Scan fingerprint system and eCDR. The interface transmits confirmed Live Scan records to the eCDR system so that when police generate a complaint , Live Scan record data automatically wi ll populate many of the required fields on the eCDR. The interface in this way reduces the time needed to enter data, enhances data quality, and ensures positive identification of defendants.

. . . . When a defendant is arrested and fingerprinted at th e time of complaint processing, the Live Scan fingerprinting must be completed before beginning an eCDR complaint. Once the Live Scan confirmation is received, the law enforcement officer or agency shall proceed to the eCDR system to begin generating a com plaint

.A

- 3460

- 18T1 11 T he Supreme Court has r ecogniz ed th at as the State 's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General retains the authority to adopt guidelines, directives, and policies that bind police departments statewide

. Paff v. Ocean Cty

. Prosecutor's Office , 235 N.J. 1, 1 9 (2018)

. While a Millville police officer commence s prepar ation of a complaint

- summons through use of the electronic interface system describ ed in the Attorney General 's directive , the document is completed by eCDR and the finished product is maintained by the municipal court or, in a larger sense, the judiciary. We also observe that i t may be true that the Millville Police Department has access to the electronic interface system , but that does not alter the fact
t hat the record is maintained by the judiciary. We conclude that i t is to th e judiciary that plaintiffs must direct their request for the production of such records. The burden should not be placed on local authorities to search for records maintained by others for those records that fall into plaintiffs' broad requests. See MAG Entm't , 375 N.J. Super. at 546

- 4 7

. Reversed.