Township Council Meeting — Agenda

MRS L 000300-20 05/22/2020 Pg 8 of 16 Trans ID: LCV2020932426 ¶¶ 3, 5. footage to another requestor. Id. ¶ 4. be paid as the prevailing party, even though defense counsel advised that the change in policy was not the result of the instant lawsuit, but rather due to this recent decision. Id. In a follow-up email, wrote, in relevant part, that, [a]s I stated on the call, our position is that you should release the BWC video immediately as it does not pertain to a criminal maintained per the AG Directive, and therefore the criminal investigatory records exemption that the Clerk cited does not apply. Given that you stated that you do not object to the disclosure of the BWC, I believe that you should have the police department release it to Ms. Montes immediately and then we can limit our arguments to matter. I am also happy to try to settle those fees. [Griffin Cert. ¶ 5]. Id. ¶ 6. On February 7, 2020, Defendants were served with the Verified Complaint and, three (3) minutes later, the Morristown Police Department sent Plaintiff an email from Evidence.com, producing the BWC video. Id. ¶¶ 7-8; Exh. C. Plaintiff claims that she is the she received the requested BWC footage after she filed and served the OPRA complaint. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. OPRA claim relating to the BWC footage. Although Plaintiff received the dash camera footage within seven (7) business days, her request for BWC footage was denied on January 23, 2020, when Kaye indicated that the Town could not produce the BWC footage based on the criminal 8 Pa049