2004-91

Final Decision

At its September 9, 2004 public meeting, the Government Records Council (Council) considered the September 1, 2004 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations.  The Council, therefore, dismissed the case on the basis that the Government Records Council lacks jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A.47:1a-7(g).

This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey within forty-five (45) days. Information about the appeals process can be obtained from the Appellate Division Clerk’s Office, Hughes Justice Complex, 25 W. Market St., PO Box 006, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006.

Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 9th Day of September, 2004

Vincent P. Maltese, Chairman
Government Records Council

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.

Virginia Hook, Secretary
Government Records Council 

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Records Requested:

1. Information on the Automated Case Management System in all courts, which the complainant would like to view
2. Specific request for fees collected by the courts on complaints, motions, answers with counter claims
3. Information on court personnel being able to make changes at their own discretion

Request Made:  July 5, 2004
Response Made:  July 12, 2004
Custodian:  Jane F. Castner
GRC Complaint Filed:  July 13, 2004

Background

Complainant’s Case Position

The Complainant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the Government Records Council on July 13, 2004 alleging a denial of access to information about the courts Automated Case Management System, the fees collected by the courts on complaints, motions, answers with counter claims and information on court personnel being able to make changes at there own discretion.  The Complainant contends that he filed his request on July 5, 2004 and acknowledges receiving a response on July 12, 2004, but the response did not satisfy his request.

Public Agency Position

In response to the Complainant’s allegations, Counsel to the Administrative Director (“Counsel”) for the Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) contends that written responses were given to the Complainant on July 29, 30 and August 10, 2004 concerning his requests.  In the written responses, the Assistant Director, Jane Castner, explained the court’s fee collection process, how to obtain a copy of the “ACMS Fee Subsystem’s Fee Receipts Listing,” how to view actual case files, obtain copies of Judiciary reports, and informed the Complainant that he could not view a demonstration of the Automated Case Management System pursuant to “Court Rule 1:38.” 

Counsel asserts that the Administrative Office of the Courts is part of the Judicial Branch of the State Government and is, therefore, not subject to the disclosure requirements of the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”). 

Analysis

The Complainant is seeking information and documents from the AOC.  Officials of the AOC responded to the Complainant’s questions concerning the court’s system and fees, but denied access to view a demonstration of the Automated Case Management System pursuant to Court Rule 1.38.  Officials of AOC assert that as a Judiciary, they are not subject to the disclosure requirements of OPRA.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(g), the Government Records Council (“Council”) “shall not have jurisdiction over the Judicial or Legislative Branches of Statement Government or any agency, officer, or employee of those branches.”  The AOC is part of the Judicial Branch of the State Government.  In similar cases Giacoboni v. Superior Court of New Jersey, GRC Complaint No. 2003-126 and Giacoboni v. Administrative Office of the Courts, GRC Complaint No. 2003-127, the Council concluded that the Government Records Council lacks the jurisdiction over the AOC, stating in part i In Giacoboni v. Administrative Office of the Courts, GRC Complaint No. 2003-127n Giacoboni v. Administrative Office of the Courts, GRC Complaint No. 2003-127:

“The AOC [Administrative Office of the Court] is part of the Judicial Branch of the State government.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the Administrative Director and Deputy Administrative Director of the AOC. N.J.S.A. 2A:12-1.  The AOC is authorized “to develop and operate an automated data processing system that allows the public to access court information and to file court documents, pursuant to such directives, rules an regulations as the Supreme Court may adopt.  N.J.S.A. 2B:1-4(a).  The Supreme Court has adopted R. 1:38 to regulate access to court records.” 

The plain statutory language excludes judicial entities and its employees from the scope of OPRA.  While the AOC has an alternative process for regulating access to judicial records as stated by AOC and explained in the correspondence dated July 29, 30 and August 10, 2004 from AOC to the Complainant, the GRC does not have jurisdiction to regulate the AOC’s process.   Therefore, the GRC lacks jurisdiction over this matter, and the case should be dismissed. 

Documents Reviewed

The following records were reviewed in preparation for this “Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director”

1. July 5, 2004 – Complainant’s OPRA request to Custodian
2. July 13, 2004 – Denial of Access Complaint Filed
3. July 15, 2004 – Offer of Mediation to the Complainant and Custodian
4. July 16, 2004 – Letter from AOC Counsel to GRC responding to the Denial of Access Complaint
5. July 29, 2004 – AOC letter to Complainant responding to the request
6. July 30, 2004 – AOC letter to Complainant supplemental response to request
7. August 10, 2004 – AOC letter to Complainant reiterating information provided in previous correspondence

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council dismiss the case because the Government Records Council lacks the jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to OPRA. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-7(g).

Prepared By: Case Manager

Approved By:
Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

September 1, 2004

Return to Top