Township Council Meeting — Agenda

The court also found the emails were exempt from disclosure under OPRA because they constituted "inter-agency or intra-agency advisory, consultative, or deliberative material." See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. The "exemption has been construed to encompass the deliberative process privilege, which has its roots in the common law." Ciesla v. N.J. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 429 N.J. Super. 127, 137 (App. Div. 2012). "[T]he deliberative process privilege . . . allow[s] the government to 'withhold documents that reflect advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by which [its] decisions and policies are formulated.'" Ibid. (fourth alteration in original) (quoting In re Liquidation of Integrity Ins. Co., 165 N.J. 75, 83 (2000)). "[T]he deliberative process privilege is governed by a two-prong test." Libertarians for Transparent Gov't v. Gov't Recs. Council, 453 N.J. Super. 83, Township's attorneys' client, the Township. On remand, subject to any defenses that may be available to plaintiff, the Township is not precluded from presenting evidence establishing that as a matter of fact and law the emails are privileged communications on that basis, or any other basis supporting a finding the emails are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege or exemption available under OPRA or in response to a request for public records under the common law right of access to public records. See, e.g., O'Boyle, 218 N.J. at 186-88 (discussing the common interest rule, joint defense agreements, and the work product doctrine as bases supporting a finding that communications between attorneys and third parties are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege). A-2287-19 21 Pa021