The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2023, that Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC, is not entitled to attorneys' fees in its case against the Township of Neptune. This decision stems from Gannett's request for access to Internal Affairs files related to a former police officer who was convicted of murder. The ruling clarifies the limits of public records access under New Jersey law and the application of attorneys' fees in such cases.
The case began after Philip Seidle, a police officer in Neptune Township, killed his former wife in 2015. Following this incident, the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office released a report that included information from Seidle's Internal Affairs files. Gannett, which operates the Asbury Park Press, sought access to these files under both the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and common law. The Township denied the request, prompting Gannett to file a lawsuit in the Law Division.
The trial court ruled that while Gannett's OPRA claim was dismissed, it was entitled to a redacted version of the Internal Affairs files based on the common law right of access. The court also granted Gannett a partial award of attorneys' fees, stating that the records would not have been released without the court's intervention. However, the Township appealed this decision.
The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's ruling regarding the release of the records but reversed the award of attorneys' fees. The court stated that while New Jersey recognizes a right to attorneys' fees in certain common law cases, this case did not meet those criteria. Gannett then sought certification from the New Jersey Supreme Court on the issue of attorneys' fees.
In its ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, stating, "We decline to adopt an exception to the American Rule for common law right of access claims to public records." The court emphasized that allowing fee-shifting in these cases would impose significant burdens on municipal clerks and other records custodians. The justices noted that the common law right of access is more complex than the OPRA process and requires careful consideration of various factors.
The court explained that the American Rule, which states that each party pays its own attorneys' fees, applies in this case. The justices outlined that exceptions to this rule are limited and do not include common law right of access claims. They stated, "A request for information not subject to disclosure under OPRA, predicated on the common law right of access, is a particularly inappropriate basis for an award of attorneys' fees as an exception to the American Rule."
As a result of this ruling, Gannett will not receive the attorneys' fees it sought, which amounted to over $85,000. The court's decision reinforces the notion that public records requests under common law do not automatically entitle requestors to fee awards, maintaining the integrity of the American Rule in New Jersey.
This case has broader implications for media organizations and individuals seeking access to public records. It highlights the challenges faced by requestors when pursuing transparency and accountability from public entities. The ruling may deter some potential litigants from pursuing similar claims due to the financial risks involved.
Looking ahead, Gannett's options for appeal appear limited, as the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision is final. However, the case may influence future discussions around public records access and the potential for legislative changes regarding attorneys' fees in such matters. Stakeholders in the media and civil rights communities may advocate for reforms to ensure that access to public records is not impeded by financial burdens.