A recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision highlights an important procedural safeguard in public records litigation: courts must independently review documents before accepting a government agency’s claim that they are exempt from disclosure. In Association for Governmental Responsibility, Ethics and Transparency v. New Jersey Office of the Attorney General (on appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-1233-24), the court vacated a trial court decision that had denied access to attorney training materials without first conducting an in camera review.

The case arose from a request for materials used in a mandatory training course for deputy attorneys general. The State denied the request, asserting that the materials were exempt under OPRA because they could reveal legal strategy, attorney work product, or other privileged information. The trial court agreed, relying on certifications describing the materials rather than examining them directly. The Appellate Division found that approach insufficient, emphasizing that when privilege or confidentiality is asserted, courts are generally required to review the documents themselves to determine whether the exemption applies and whether any portions may be disclosed through redaction.

The decision also reinforces the continued relevance of the common law right of access, which requires courts to balance the public’s interest in disclosure against the government’s interest in confidentiality. Without reviewing the materials, the court explained, that balancing test cannot be meaningfully performed. The ruling serves as a reminder that while OPRA provides broad access to government records, exemptions must be carefully scrutinized, and courts play a critical role in ensuring that claims of privilege are supported by more than general assertions.