Court Opinion

ID: 9906279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 16:08:26.117317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:13.093908
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NO. A-0474-22

SCOTT MADLINGER,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE,
and DENA M. HREBENAK, in her
official capacity as Municipal Clerk
and Records Custodian of the
Township of Independence,

          Defendants-Respondents.

                   Argued November 15, 2023 – Decided December 1, 2023

                   Before Judges Currier, Firko and Vanek.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Warren County, Docket No. L-0114-22.

                   Christina N. Stripp argued the cause for appellant
                   (Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP,
                   attorneys; Walter Michael Luers and Christina N.
                   Stripp, on the briefs).

                   William Henry Pandos argued the cause for
                   respondents (Lavery, Selvaggi, Abromitis & Cohen,
            attorneys; James F. Moscagiuri and William Henry
            Pandos, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Plaintiff Scott Madlinger appeals from an October 12, 2022 Law Division

order dismissing his verified complaint with prejudice and denying his request

for counsel fees against defendants, Township of Independence (Township), and

its Municipal Clerk, Dena M. Hrebenak. In his verified complaint, plaintiff

alleged defendants failed to produce unredacted invoices for legal services in

violation of the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, and

the common law right-of-access. Because the trial court did not provide any

reasons for its decision as required under Rule 1:7-4(a), we are constrained to

vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.

      We discern the following material facts from the record. On April 8, 2022,

plaintiff sent an email to the Township requesting:

            Legal invoices for all legal services rendered and
            reimbursed by Town since January 1, 2020, including
            Town Counsel and Labor Counsel and any other
            attorney work performed for and paid by the Town.

      On April 21, 2022, Hrebenak sent an email in reply attaching the

"Township Committee legal and labor bills for 2022" and advising the 2021

invoices would be forthcoming. Hrebenak also requested a one-week extension

                                                                          A-0474-22
                                       2
to send the 2020 invoices. On May 13, 2022, Hrebenak sent a copy of the 2020

invoices to plaintiff along with a Vaughn1 index as to the attorney-client

communications and confidential personnel information redacted from the

documents.

        Plaintiff filed an order to show cause (OTSC) and verified complaint

challenging the legality of the redactions and to compel defendants to provide

unredacted copies of the legal invoices. 2 Plaintiff also requested counsel fees.

After a hearing on July 8, 2022, the court entered an order with an accompanying

fifteen-page written statement of reasons requiring defendants to submit the

unredacted records to the court for an in camera review. The court concluded,

in part, that "[a]lthough attorney billing records are not in-and-of themselves

exempted from disclosure under OPRA, it is undisputed that line-item billing

1
     Originally set forth in Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-27 (D.C. Cir.
    1973), Vaughn indices were incorporated into New Jersey caselaw in part
    through Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 109-13 (1986). "The 'Vaughn
    index must consist of one comprehensive document, adequately describe each
    withheld document or redaction, state the exemption claimed, and explain why
    each exemption applies.'" Davis v. Disability Rights N.J., 475 N.J. Super. 122,
    146 (App. Div. 2023) (quoting Cozen O'Connor v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 570
    F. Supp. 2d 749, 765 (E.D. Pa. 2008)).
2
     The court denied the initial OTSC on May 23, 2022 because the verified
    complaint that was filed did not align with the OPRA request and, instead,
    referenced documents sought regarding an unrelated arrest.

                                                                             A-0474-22
                                          3
descriptions should be redacted where they contain information that is subject

to attorney-client privilege or is otherwise exempt from disclosure." The court

found it could not "determine whether [d]efendant[s'] records f[e]ll under any

of the various factors [d]efendant[s] listed (reasonable expectation of privacy,

work product privilege, common law right[-]of[-]access, [et cetera])" without

reviewing the unredacted documents. The court reserved decision on plaintiff's

request for an award of counsel fees pending the in camera review.

      On July 20, 2022, defendants submitted both unredacted and redacted

versions of the documents to the court. On July 28, 2022, the court sent counsel

a letter stating the court found the redacted material was "sufficient." No order

or statement of reasons accompanied the letter.

      On August 24, 2022, plaintiff submitted a proposed form of order

dismissing the action with prejudice and denying the request for prevailing party

counsel fees as a final order, thus closing the case. On October 12, 2022, the

court entered the final order in the form proposed. This appeal followed.

      On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court failed to set forth an oral or

written statement of facts and legal reasons that led to the entry of the October

12, 2022 final order as required by Rule 1:7-4(a). Plaintiff also posits that

defendants have not supported the rationale for the redactions with satisfactory

                                                                            A-0474-22
                                        4
evidence and, therefore, have not met their burden of establishing that the

information redacted was privileged. Additionally, plaintiff maintains that he

must be awarded counsel fees as a prevailing party.

      Our review of a trial court's legal conclusions in an OPRA action is de

novo. Dig. First Media v. Ewing Tp., 462 N.J. Super. 389, 397 (App. Div. 2020).

However, we employ "a different and deferential standard of review when a

court conducts in camera review of documents and balances competing interests

in disclosure and confidentiality in connection with a common-law-based

request to inspect public records."   N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Twp. of

Lyndhurst, 441 N.J. Super. 70, 89 (App. Div. 2015). In that event, it is not

proper to disturb factual findings unless they are not supported by adequate,

substantial, and credible evidence. Meshinsky v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc., 110

N.J. 464, 475 (1988).

      Plaintiff does not assert the trial court erred in ordering an in camera

review of the unredacted documents. Indeed, where the documents were so

heavily redacted as to be incomprehensible to a reader, the court's decision was

well-supported.    However, we cannot meaningfully review the court's

determination that the redactions were "sufficient" because no reasons were

provided for the decision.

                                                                          A-0474-22
                                       5
      Rule 1:7-4(a) requires that "[t]he court shall, by an opinion or

memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its

conclusions of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury, on every motion

decided by a written order that is appealable as of right . . . ." Findings of fact

and conclusions of law are required on "every motion decided by [a] written

order[] . . . appealable as of right." Schwarz v. Schwarz, 328 N.J. Super. 275,

282 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting R. 1:7-4(a)). "Failure to perform this duty

'constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate court.'"

Ibid. (quoting Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980)).

      Without a statement of reasons, we are "left to conjecture as to what the

judge may have had in mind." Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App.

Div. 1990). "Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth

the reasons for his or her opinion." Ibid.

      Defendants do not disagree that compliance with Rule 1:7-4(a) is required.

Instead, they assert the court's July 8, 2022 fifteen-page written decision read in

conjunction with the July 28, 2022 letter formulate an adequate statement of

reasons. We disagree that these court filings read in tandem articulate the basis

for the court's dismissal of the action with prejudice and denial of attorney's fees

under Rule 1:7-4(a). Although the October 12, 2022 order references both prior

                                                                              A-0474-22
                                         6
filings, the July 28, 2022 letter did not expressly incorporate the July 8, 2022

written decision and could not have relied upon the prior rationale since the

written decision pre-dated the in camera review of the documents. The letter

also did not include an order as required to issue a final determination regarding

plaintiff's application.

      We vacate the October 12, 2022 order and remand to the trial court to

provide its findings of fact and conclusions of law with an accompanying order

subsequent to its in camera review. See Kas Oriental Rugs, Inc. v. Ellman, 407

N.J. Super. 538, 561 (App. Div. 2009) (finding we were "compelled to vacate

the award under review and remand for further proceedings because the judge's

findings do not comport with Rule 1:7-4(a) in a number of respects"); see also

United Consumer Fin. Servs. Co. v. Carbo, 410 N.J. Super. 280, 313 (App. Div.

2009) (finding that the trial court's decision was not sufficiently explained to

permit Appellate Division review and remanding the matter for reconsideration).

The remand shall be completed within sixty days of this decision. In vacating

the October 12, 2022 order, we proffer no opinion as to the merits of the parties'

claims or defenses regarding any redactions.

      Vacated and remanded for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                            A-0474-22
                                        7