Final Decision
|
Maryann Cottrell
Complainant
v.
Rowan University
Custodian of Record
|
Complaint No. 2005-255
|
At its July 13, 2006 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the July 6, 2006 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, finds that the Custodian was not obligated to comply with the Complainant’s November 4, 2005 request pursuant to OPRA as said request is not a valid OPRA request as it is a request for records per discovery. The Council should close this case with no further action.
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. Proper service of submissions pursuant to any appeal is to be made to the Council in care of the Executive Director at the State of New Jersey Government Records Council, 101 South Broad Street, PO Box 819, Trenton, NJ 08625-0819.
Final Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 20th Day of July, 2006
Robin Berg Tabakin, Vice Chairman & Secretary
Government Records Council
I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.
Kathryn Forsyth, Designee of Acting Commissioner Lucille Davy
Government Records Council
Return to Top
Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director
|
Maryann Cottrell
Complainant
v.
Rowan University
Custodian of Record
|
Complaint No. 2005-255
|
Records Relevant to Complaint: Any and all documents, reports, or investigations regarding the incident date and the statement date for State of NJ (James Moore Sr.) vs. Maryann Cottrell, Complaint No. 2005-499-0806 per discovery entitlement:
- Rowan Police Ptl. Carrie Rathof
- Rowan Police Ptl. Joseph Mandi discovery request (interview with Anton Garnett)
- Public Safety Mr. Tim Mitchener
- Public Safety Mr. Reed Layton
- Facilities Mr. Glen Brewer
- Facilities Mr. John Kuhlen
- Facilities Mr. John Patterson
- Facilities Mr. Russell Massimino
- Facilities Mr. Richard Pustizzi
- Facilities Mr. James Moore Sr.
- Student Services Mr. Anton Garnett
Request Made: November 4, 2005
Response Made: December 22, 2005 and January 5, 2006
Custodian: Frank Amoresano
GRC Complaint filed: December 14, 2005
Background
November 4, 2005
Complainant’s request for records. The Complainant states that she is seeking the following per the discovery entitlement regarding State of NJ (James Moore Sr.) vs. Maryann Cottrell, Complaint No. 2005-499-0806: any and all documents, reports, or investigations regarding the incident date and the statement date for Rowan Police Ptl. Carrie Rathof; Rowan Police Ptl. Joseph Mandi discovery request (interview with Anton Garnett); Public Safety Mr. Tim Mitchener; Public Safety Mr. Reed Layton; Facilities Mr. Glen Brewer; Facilities Mr. John Kuhlen; Facilities Mr. John Patterson; Facilities Mr. Russell Massimino; Facilities Mr. Richard Pustizzi; Facilities Mr. James Moore Sr.; and Student Services Mr. Anton Garnett.
December 14, 2005
Denial of Access Complaint filed with the Government Records Council (“GRC”) with the following attachment:
- Complainant’s November 4, 2005 request for records through discovery
The Complainant asserts submitting her request on November 4, 2005 for documents through discovery regarding an incident in which she was involved. She claims to have received no response from the Custodian regarding this request.
December 22, 2005
Offer of Mediation sent to both parties. Neither party agreed to mediate this case.
December 28, 2005
Letter from Custodian to GRC staff. The Custodian states that he received a facsimile transmittal dated December 22, 2005 regarding a letter dated November 4, 2005 from the Complainant. The Custodian asserts that he never received said letter from the Complainant prior to December 22, 2005.
January 6, 2006
Request for Statement of Information sent to the Custodian.
January 11, 2006
Custodian’s Statement of Information (“SOI”) with the following attachments:
- Complainant’s November 4, 2005 request for records through discovery
- December 22, 2005 letter from Custodian to Complainant
- December 28, 2005 letter from Custodian to GRC staff
- January 5, 2006 letter from Custodian to Complainant
The Custodian certifies that he did not receive the Complainant’s November 4, 2005 request until December 22, 2005 when he received it from GRC staff. He certifies that upon searching his records, he located nine (9) pages responsive to the Complainant’s request. He also certifies that he notified the Complainant of such in a letter dated January 5, 2006 and is awaiting her response as to when she would like to view or obtain copies of the requested records.
Analysis
What constitutes a valid OPRA request?
The Complainant asserts submitting her records request on November 4, 2005. The Custodian certifies that he did not receive the Complainant’s request until December 22, 2005, when it was sent to him by GRC staff. He additionally certifies that upon reviewing his records, he has located the records responsive and notified the Complainant of such on January 5, 2006. The Custodian asserts that he is awaiting a reply from the Complainant.
Pursuant to OPRA, the Complainant’s November 4, 2005 request is not a valid OPRA request as she states that she is requesting documents through discovery entitlement which is governed under New Jersey Court Rules rather than OPRA. As such, the Council does not have authority over requests made per discovery. Such requests would fall under N.J. Court Rules, 1969 R. 3:13-3 (2005) and N.J. Court Rules, 1969 R. 7:7-7 (2005).
Therefore, the Custodian was not obligated to comply with the Complainant’s November 4, 2005 request pursuant to OPRA as said request is not a valid OPRA request as it is a request for records per discovery.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that the Custodian was not obligated to comply with the Complainant’s November 4, 2005 request pursuant to OPRA as said request is not a valid OPRA request as it is a request for records per discovery. The Council should close this case with no further action.
Prepared By:
Dara Lownie
Case Manager
Catherine Starghill
Executive Director
Government Records Council
Return to Top
|
