On June 29, 2023, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an unpublished opinion in the matter of Zezza v. Evesham Board of Education. The appeal arose from a citizen’s request under the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) and the common law right of access, for approximately thirty-five (35) seconds of surveillance footage taken from two cameras at an elementary school within the Evesham Township School District (“District”). The District denied the request for the video footage on the basis of the security exception to OPRA and the case of Gilleran v. Twp. of Bloomfield, 227 N.J. 159 (2016) for the premise the case created a categorical OPRA exception for all public surveillance videos.
The request for the surveillance video arose after plaintiff, Helen Zezza, alleges she was threatened and accosted after her grandson’s baseball game at the elementary school. The alleged incident was purportedly captured on two of the elementary school’s security cameras.
After the District denied the request for the surveillance video, plaintiff filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking an order to show cause against the District, requesting the court require the District produce the requested security footage and sought attorney’s fees. Plaintiff also argued the common law right of access to the security footage “outweighs the governmental need for confidentiality.”
The trial court found for plaintiff under both OPRA and the common law right of access. The trial court ordered the District to produce the surveillance video and determined plaintiff was the prevailing party entitled to an award of $8,046.50 in attorney’s fees. Specifically, the trial court determined Gilleran allowed for production of a record or portion of a record that does not reveal information about the security scheme of the public building and that it was the District’s burden to demonstrate that the footage would reveal “security compromising information” which the District failed to do.
On appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division, the District argued the security footage was exempt from disclosure under OPRA and attorney’s fees were not mandatory under the common law right of access. The Appellate Division disagreed with the District and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Appellate Division rejected the District’s contention that Gilleran created a blanket exception for all surveillance videos and also determined the District failed to establish any security concerns to prevent disclosure under OPRA. Since it was undisputed that OPRA statutorily mandates a fee award to the prevailing party, the Appellate Division rejected the District’s remaining argument the trial judge abused her discretion by awarding attorney’s fees.
