Township Council Meeting — Agenda

MRS L 000300-20 05/22/2020 Pg 7 of 16 Trans ID: LCV2020932426 . Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 73 (2008). Plaintiffs are entitled to and the relief ultimately achieved; and (2) that the relief ultimately secured by plaintiffs had a basis Id. at 76 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). d. Whether Plaintiff is the Prevailing Party The parties first disagree as to whether Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Here, Plaintiff filed an OPRA request on January 13, 2020, seeking to obtain both the dash camera and body-worn ootage of that occurred on January 6, 2020. See Ver. Compl., Exhs. A, B. On January 23, 2020, seven (7) business days after Plaintiff filed her request, Kaye emailed Plaintiff that she was in receipt of her OPRA request, and that the disc containing the footage was ready to be picked up. Id., Exh. B. However, later that same day, Kaye followed up to state that she had neglected to include a denial to your request for the body worn video denied pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1, et seq. as a Id. Following further inquiries by Plaintiff as to how the criminal investigatory record exception applied to her request, o as to why this exception applied. Id. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause for relief under OPRA, which the Court granted that same day. Griffin Cert. ¶ 4. On February 6, 2020, defense counsel spoke with to say that he wished she had contacted him before filing the Verified Complaint because, due to a new unreported Appellate Division decision, Richard Rivera, LLC v. Twsp. of Bloomfield, 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 55 (January 9, 2020), the Town would be providing BWC footage to all requestors. Pawar Cert. 7 Pa048