NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Martin E. O'Boyle appeals from the trial court's order denying his requests for the disclosure of documents pursuant to New Jersey's Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to-12, and the common law right of access (CLROA). We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the written decision of the trial judge.
At issue here are two separate requests for documents made in April 2014. Plaintiff made the first of these requests to defendants Borough of Longport and Emilia Strawder, the Borough's Municipal Clerk and Records Custodian, (collectively Longport), seeking:
[A] copy of all communications and other government records received or sent by Michael Barker or anyone in the firm of Barker, Scott & Gefland to Carl Tripican, Soe Sayegh [sic], Bruce Funk, John Stroebele [sic], Marc Silver, Sott Abbott [sic] and Judge Savio (the "Parties") between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008, including any communications between the Parties during that period.1
Both Strawder and Barker's counsel sent written responses to plaintiff's attorney, representing that Barker's counsel would make a search of files. However, no documents were produced.
In his second request, plaintiff sought:
[A] listing of all of the properties which are "repetitive loss properties"2 shown on the map ("Map of Repetitive Losses") on the following web page: http://www.longport-nj.us/content/141/166. To the extent that the information is available, please provide the address of the properties; and the date of each loss for each property; and the amount of each loss for each of the properties. Also, to the extent that a specific property has multiple losses, we would request that the information include each loss, the date of each loss and the amount of each loss.
Funk denied plaintiff's second request, stating the "material requested is not subject to an OPRA Request." He attached documentation supporting that statement, including a copy of the Repetitive Loss Update Worksheet (Worksheet) provided by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with arrows drawn to the following notices in the Worksheet:
Privacy Act: The information contained in this transmittal is legally privileged and confidential. Its use is protected under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a). Use of the provided information is restricted to the applicable Routine Use(s) cited in the System Notice published at 67 [C]FR 3193 January 23, 2003. The information provided should be used consistently with the purpose(s) for which the records were released as stated in the applicable Routine Use(s) cited herein.
Further, under the [Privacy Act], personal identifiers, such as names, may be used only for limited purposes. One of the allowable uses of names and flood insurance claims history is to analyze the effectiveness of local flood loss reduction efforts. In addition, the Routine Use furthers the floodplain management and hazard mitigation goals of the Agency by making more detailed NFIP records available to communities. Communities may use personal identifiers for this purpose only and are prohibited from using them for solicitation or other reasons.
In addition, Funk included a copy of his 2013 email correspondence with the ISO Community Hazard Mitigation program.3 Funk had asked whether he could use the FEMA data he received annually to disclose if a specific property has ever had a flood insurance claim. Funk was advised:
The claims information you receive for your community is Privacy Act protected. The community MAY NOT disclose any specific information regarding losses, including dates of loss or amount of claims.
The community MAY disclose that the property in question is within an AREA that has experienced flooding problems in the past.
Plaintiff filed a verified complaint and order to show cause. The complaint alleged that Longport's denial of the requested materials violated OPRA and the CLROA. The accompanying order to show cause sought an order requiring Longport "to immediately disclose" copies of the records sought and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit.
The matter proceeded in a summary manner pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. Following oral argument, the trial judge entered an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint and provided a written statement of reasons. On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in finding that disclosure of the records sought in his requests was not warranted pursuant to OPRA and the CLROA.4
Our review of whether access to public records was warranted under both OPRA and the CLROA is de novo. N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Twp. of Lyndhurst, 441 N.J.Super. 70, 89 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP v. N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, 421 N.J.Super. 489, 497 (App. Div. 2011)); Paff v. N.J. State Firemen's Ass'n, 431 N.J.Super. 278, 286 (App. Div. 2013).
Turning to our review of the denial of plaintiff's first request, we note the trial judge correctly articulated the following applicable legal principles:
OPRA does not permit wholesale requests for general information. MAG Entm't LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J.Super. 534, 549 (App. Div. 2005). OPRA does not permit open-ended demands for every document a public agency has on file. Bent v. [Twp. of] Stafford [] Police Dep't, 381 N.J.Super. 30, 37 (App. Div. 2005). Under OPRA, a party requesting public records must specifically describe the document or documents sought such that the custodian of records may identify those documents within the short time frame within which they have to respond. Gannett N.J. Partners[,] L.P. v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J.Super. 205, 212 (App. Div. 2005); Bent, supra, 381 N.J. Super. at 36-37. "[A] proper request under OPRA must identify with reasonable clarity those documents that are desired, and a party cannot satisfy this requirement by simply requesting all of an agency's documents." Bent, supra, [381 N.J. Super. at 37].
The judge found that Longport was not required to disclose records in response to the first request under OPRA because it was "overbroad and open-ended." He explained that O'Boyle "demand[ed] the production of every correspondence between eight parties over the span of eighteen months," but he failed to "specify the type of communication," "identify the topic of communication" and "distinguish between method[s] of communication." Turning to the common law, the judge balanced plaintiff's interest in disclosure against the government's interest in preventing disclosure, see Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. Cnty. of Essex, 141 N.J. 35, 46-48 (1995), and determined "plaintiff's request [was] overbroad and his articulated interest [was] too speculative to support a legitimate interest in the information requested."
We agree with the trial judge's analysis and conclusion that Longport was not required to provide documents in response to plaintiff's overbroad first request.
The trial judge found plaintiff's second request overbroad as well. In addition to noting the bar to disclosure posed by the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C.A. § 552a (Privacy Act), the judge concluded that the request for addresses and information regarding property damage affecting individuals was protected from public access under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. He explained: "It is reasonable for a citizen to expect such information to remain private against the vague and general interest articulated by plaintiff of devising an alternative to dune barriers as a solution to flooding problems."
On appeal, plaintiff argues the Privacy Act applies only to federal agencies; the Privacy Act does not bar release of records under federal law if records must be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552; and the federal common law right to know also provides access. These arguments lack merit.
OPRA prevents disclosure of a government record that "is exempt from public access by . . . any federal law; federal regulation; or federal order." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(a). Pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 5121 to-5207, FEMA is required to provide States with "the electronic records of individuals and households receiving assistance . . . in order for the States to make available any additional State and local assistance to the individuals and households." 42 U.S.C.A. § 5174(f)(2). 44 C.F.R. § 206.110(j)(2) (2016) establishes the following restrictions on the State's maintenance of this information:
(i) States receiving applicant information under this paragraph must protect such information in the same manner that the Privacy Act requires FEMA to protect it.
(ii) States receiving such applicant information shall not further disclose the information to other entities, and shall not use it for purposes other than providing additional State or local disaster assistance to individuals and households.
[(Emphasis added).]
Subsection (i) clearly provides that the Privacy Act applies to the requested materials in this case. In addition, subsection (ii) explicitly prohibits government bodies from disclosing this information for any purpose "other than providing additional State or local disaster assistance to individuals and households." Because the information sought in plaintiff's second request is clearly protected from disclosure under the applicable federal statute and regulation, the request was properly denied.
Affirmed.
