Township Council Meeting — Agenda

MON L 002616-17 05/13/2019 Pg 6 of 11 Trans ID: LCV2019843985 seeking access to Internal Affairs Records bears a heavy burden to establish that its interest in disclosure outweighs the compelling policy reasons that militate in favor of confidentiality. More importantly, plaintiff notes that neither amici nor defendant provide any analysis regarding the specific records at issue, and simply offer broad and general policy considerations to support their arguments for confidentiality. IV. A motion to reconsider , considered on the first application Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 382-83 (App. Div. 1996). In addition, reconsideration should be used sparingly and D Atria v. , 242 N.J. Super. 392, 403 (Ch. Div. 1990). with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred Cummings, 295 N.J. Super. at 382 (citing R. 4:49-2). A prevailing party who challenges a denial of access under the common law, and can establish uction of the requested records, may be entitled to ees. Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 79 (2008); see also Stop & Shop Supermarkets Co., LLC v. Cty. of Bergen, 450 N.J. Super. 286, 292 (2017) (citing Mason, 196 N.J. at 79, and holding that ants must make the same showing as a prevailing party under OPRA to recover fees.) This approach differs from the under which a prevailing party cannot recover Mason, 196 N.J. at 71 (citing Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995)). 4 Pa036