Dear Matawan Borough,

Please accept this electronic request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form or use a particular software platform to submit my request per N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6(f), which states that an email from a requestor including all information required on the adopted form shall suffice as a valid government record request.

I HAVE NOT been convicted of any indictable offense under the laws of New Jersey, any other state, or the United States.
I WILL NOT use the requested records for a commercial purpose.
I AM NOT seeking records in connection with a legal proceeding.

Records requested:

I request all Borough Attorney billing records, legal invoices, itemized statements, time entries, billing descriptions, memoranda, and all legal communications related to legal services performed for the Borough of Matawan from January 1, 2024 to the present. This request includes all outside attorneys, special counsel, redevelopment counsel, bond counsel, labor counsel, conflict counsel, Cannabis Counsel, and any other attorney or law firm that billed or advised the Borough in any capacity. This request includes but is not limited to the following:
1. All attorney billing records:

• All invoices, itemized bills, time entries, dates of service, descriptions of work performed, hours billed, and total amounts charged.
• All billing records from the Borough Attorney, special counsel, outside counsel, Cannabis Counsel, redevelopment counsel, land use counsel, bond counsel, labor counsel, conflict counsel, and any attorney or law firm under contract or engagement with the Borough.

2. All legal communications with Borough officials:

• All emails, letters, memos, and correspondence between any attorney and Borough officials including the Mayor, Borough Administrator, Councilmembers, Municipal Clerk, CFO, DPW, Engineering, Planning, Zoning, Construction, or any staff member.
• All communications referencing legal advice, risk assessments, disputes, litigation exposure, redevelopment, bonding, personnel issues, cannabis licensing or cannabis zoning, OPRA compliance, or OPMA issues.

3. All attorney communications referencing the requestor (John Certo):

• All emails, memos, correspondence, notes, or discussions that reference “Certo,” “John Certo,” “OPRA Certo,” “records request,” or any internal discussion about responding to or handling OPRA requests from the requestor.

4. All legal communications involving OPRA:

• All emails, memos, and notes where attorneys advised on OPRA responses, OPRA delays, OPRA extensions, OPRA redactions, OPRA denials, and OPRA procedures.
• All internal guidance given to staff on OPRA compliance.

5. All communications relating to executive session legal topics:

• All attorney correspondence concerning anticipated litigation, pending litigation, contract negotiations, real estate transactions, redevelopment issues, cannabis applications, or personnel matters.
• All summaries or discussions of legal topics presented during executive session.

6. All legal work relating to Bond Ordinances 25-18 and 25-19:

• All billing entries, emails, memos, drafts, and communications relating to bond preparation, financial structure, property acquisition, negotiations, or debt service impact.
• All legal work related to land acquisition or redevelopment associated with these ordinances.

7. All legal work involving Cannabis Counsel:

• All invoices, time entries, correspondence, reviews, legal opinions, or memos involving cannabis licensing, cannabis zoning, cannabis redevelopment, cannabis business applications, cannabis approvals, cannabis-related property reviews, or Borough cannabis ordinances.

8. All legal work involving public comments, public criticism, communications strategy, or resident disputes:

• Any billing or correspondence related to communication strategy, public messaging, political issues, public reaction, or interactions with residents.

This request applies to ALL attorneys and law firms that performed work for, billed, advised, or communicated with the Borough of Matawan. Records held by outside counsel, Cannabis Counsel, or any contracted attorney are government records and must be retrieved and produced in full compliance with OPRA.

Citizen protections and legal requirements governing this request:
1. Native format production requirement (Paff v. Galloway):

• All electronic records must be produced in their native formats including MSG, EML, PST, XLSX, CSV, ICS, DOCX, and EXIF-intact images.
• Do not print, scan, or convert native files into PDF.

2. Metadata requirement:

• Metadata is part of the government record. Include creation dates, modification dates, authors, file paths, email headers, and version history.

3. Redaction rules:

• Billing descriptions may only be redacted to protect specific attorney-client privileged content.
• Any redaction must include a GRC-compliant redaction index with the specific statutory basis for each redaction.
• Blanket or generalized redactions are unlawful.

4. Seven-business-day rule:

• The Borough must respond within 7 business days under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i).

5. Anti-delay protections:

• Requests for clarification do not toll the deadline unless legally required.
• Delays due to staffing, workload, or interdepartmental routing are unlawful under OPRA.

6. Anti-extension protections:

• Any extension request must include:
a. A specific factual justification
b. A statutory basis
c. A firm date certain
• Open-ended or vague extensions violate Burnett v. Gloucester and Paff v. DOC.

7. Splitting of records:

• Any records currently available must be provided immediately.

8. Third-party retrieval requirement:

• Records held by outside attorneys, Cannabis Counsel, consultants, or law firms are government records and must be retrieved and produced.

9. Custodian responsibility:

• If you are not the custodian of records, forward this request immediately to the correct custodian and provide their contact information.

10. State and federal protections:

• This request is protected activity under OPRA, the First Amendment, the New Jersey Constitution, and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.
• No retaliation, obstruction, or adverse treatment may be taken against a citizen for filing an OPRA request.

My preferred delivery method for all responses is email with attachments.

Please confirm receipt of this request. If you are not the custodian of records, forward it immediately and provide their email address.

Thank you,

John Certo

Dear Records Custodian Wynne,

I write in response to the December 9, 2025 correspondence transmitted by outside counsel, Plosia Cohen LLC, regarding my November 30, 2025 OPRA and common law request for all Borough Attorney billing records, legal invoices, time entries, billing descriptions, memoranda, and legal communications related to legal services performed for the Borough of Matawan from January 1, 2024 to the present, including outside attorneys, special counsel, redevelopment counsel, bond counsel, labor counsel, conflict counsel, Cannabis Counsel, and any other attorney or law firm that billed or advised the Borough.

Your counsel’s letter correctly recites that my request encompasses: (1) attorney billing records, invoices, itemized bills, time entries, and descriptions of work; (2) legal communications with Borough officials; (3) attorney communications referencing me as the requestor; (4) legal communications involving OPRA; (5) communications relating to executive session legal topics; (6) legal work relating to Bond Ordinances 25-18 and 25-19; (7) legal work involving Cannabis Counsel; and (8) legal work involving public comments, communications strategy, and resident disputes, including records held by outside counsel and Cannabis Counsel. Your letter then invokes N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i), describes the request as exceptionally broad, notes the involvement of multiple outside law firms and privileged subject matter, and states that the Borough requires a three week extension and anticipates providing an initial response or production by December 31, 2025, in part due to holiday related staffing limitations and office closures.

I do not agree to, and do not consent to, the requested three week extension. I expressly preserve all rights under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) and do not waive the seven business day requirement in any respect.

In addition, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 declares as a matter of public policy that government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this State, with any limitations on the right of access construed in favor of the public’s right of access. The statute also makes clear that a public agency has a responsibility and an obligation to safeguard the public’s interest in transparency and that any limitations on access must be narrowly read. Against that backdrop, any claimed need for an extension, and any withholding of attorney billing records or legal communications, must be justified under a specific, recognized statutory provision and applied no more broadly than is necessary.

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) requires the custodian to grant or deny access as soon as possible, but not later than seven business days after receiving the request, and permits a reasonable extension only in the event a records custodian is unable to fulfill a records request due to unforeseen circumstances or circumstances that otherwise reasonably necessitate additional time to fulfill the records request, with notice of the extension provided within seven business days of receipt. Your counsel’s letter cites the following as reasons for a three week extension: the breadth of the request; the number of categories and subject areas involved; the need for careful document by document legal review of privileged and litigation related communications; the need to identify and retrieve records from multiple outside law firms, consultants, and special counsel; and holiday related staffing limitations and office closures. None of these circumstances were unforeseen. The scope of the request, the fact that it involves multiple types of counsel, including Cannabis Counsel, bond counsel, and redevelopment counsel, and the existence of December holidays were fully apparent as of November 30, 2025, when the request was submitted, and by December 4, 2025, when the Borough acknowledged receipt.

OPRA squarely places the burden on the custodian to demonstrate both that additional time is actually necessary and that any delay or denial is authorized by law. The statute permits a reasonable extension only where the custodian is genuinely unable to fulfill the request within seven business days due to unforeseen circumstances or circumstances that otherwise reasonably necessitate additional time. It does not recognize generalized claims of breadth, ordinary staffing constraints, routine legal review, or the involvement of outside professionals as independent grounds to delay access. Nor does OPRA provide an exception for complex or sensitive records, where those records are clearly described and already maintained by the agency and its professionals in the regular course of business.

I also note that the Borough acknowledged receipt of my request on December 4, 2025, and counsel’s extension letter is dated December 9, 2025. By waiting until near the end of the statutory response period to announce a broad three week extension, the Borough has effectively deprived me of any meaningful opportunity to evaluate and discuss narrower or staged approaches while preserving my rights under the seven business day rule. To the extent the Borough is suggesting that compliance would substantially disrupt operations, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) requires the custodian to attempt to reach a reasonable solution with the requestor that accommodates the interests of the requestor and the public agency. My original request expressly set out anti delay and anti extension protections, including that delays based on staffing, workload, interdepartmental routing, or waiting for third parties are not valid reasons to withhold responsive records under OPRA, and that any extension request must include specific factual justification, a statutory basis, and a firm date. A unilateral three week extension grounded in foreseeable, generalized workload and scheduling considerations does not satisfy those standards.

For these reasons, I expressly decline to agree to the three week extension. I consider my rights under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) fully preserved and do not consent to any waiver or relaxation of the seven business day requirement. To the extent the Borough does not provide access to the requested records, or a written denial citing specific exemptions, within OPRA’s statutory timeframe, I will treat that non compliance as a denial for purposes of my rights under OPRA and any available administrative or judicial review. For the avoidance of doubt, I will accept records whenever they are produced, but I do not agree that late or staggered production cures non compliance with the statutory timing requirements.

Even if you continue to contend that additional time is needed for certain categories of records, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) still requires that access be provided as soon as possible, not merely by the end of an extended period. OPRA does not authorize withholding records that are already identified, collected, or readily accessible while the Borough continues to locate or review other records. My original request specifically provides that any records currently available must be provided immediately and that OPRA prohibits withholding available records while awaiting others. Accordingly, I request that you immediately produce all responsive records that are presently available and can be disclosed without extensive additional effort, including at a minimum:

1. All attorney billing records, invoices, itemized statements, and time entry reports for outside and in house counsel from January 1, 2024 to the present that have already been compiled or can be retrieved with minimal effort from existing billing systems or files.
2. Any memoranda, summaries, or compilations of attorney billing or legal work that already exist in Borough records.
3. Any legal invoices or billing packets previously submitted to the Governing Body, Administration, or Finance for review, approval, or payment for the period in question.

Longstanding OPRA practice recognizes that attorney billing records, legal invoices, time sheets, and similar financial records are government records subject to disclosure, with only limited portions of narrative entries potentially subject to redaction where they would actually reveal privileged legal advice, strategy, or mental impressions. Even where some narrative detail may legitimately be redacted, basic billing information such as the identity of the law firm, the attorney, the date of service, the time expended, the nature of the matter at a general level, and the amount billed is not categorically privileged and must be produced unless a specific exemption is identified and supported. A blanket refusal to produce billing records, or to withhold them in full on the basis of privilege, would not be consistent with OPRA’s requirement that non exempt portions be released.

Your counsel’s letter emphasizes that many records, particularly legal communications, may implicate attorney client privilege, work product, litigation strategy, personnel confidentiality, or executive session protections under the Open Public Meetings Act. OPRA requires that any denials or redactions be narrowly tailored and that the specific statutory exemption or exemptions be identified for each record or category of record, while releasing all non exempt portions. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 47:1A-5(i) also require that when you deny access, in whole or in part, you must state the specific legal basis and factual reasons for the denial. My original request explicitly demanded a Government Records Council compliant redaction index: for each withheld or redacted record, you must identify the record, state the specific statutory basis for each redaction or withholding, and provide a brief description sufficient to understand what is being withheld without revealing the allegedly exempt content. General references to attorney client privilege, work product, litigation, personnel, or executive session without record by record explanation will not satisfy these requirements.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I am not requesting that the Borough create a new document, log, or index that does not already exist. However, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 47:1A-5(i) require that, when access is denied in whole or in part, the custodian identify the records being withheld, state the specific statutory basis for non disclosure, and set forth the reasons for the denial. In the context of the categories listed in my request, for example all attorney communications referencing the requestor, all legal work relating to Bond Ordinances 25-18 and 25-19, and all legal work involving Cannabis Counsel, compliance with these provisions necessarily requires that your written OPRA response make clear, for each category, whether responsive records exist, whether they are being produced in whole, produced in part, or withheld, and, if withheld in any respect, the specific statutory basis and factual reasons for non disclosure. This is not a request to create a new record, but a request that your written OPRA determination comply with the level of specificity required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 47:1A-5(i) and with my original demand for a Government Records Council compliant explanation of any redactions or withholdings.

For any category in my request for which you determine that no responsive records exist or are maintained, OPRA requires a certification of non existence under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g). Such certifications must identify the offices, locations, and systems searched so that the completeness of the search can be understood. This requirement applies especially to records held by outside counsel, Cannabis Counsel, or other contracted attorneys, which I specifically identified as government records that must be retrieved and produced when they are made, maintained, or kept on file in the course of Borough business.

I also reiterate that records made, maintained, or kept on file for the Borough by outside attorneys, special counsel, Cannabis Counsel, bond counsel, labor counsel, or other law firms in the course of performing official legal work for the Borough are government records within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. The fact that such records may physically reside with outside counsel does not remove them from OPRA. For each category in my request that implicates outside attorneys, the Borough must retrieve responsive records from those professionals in the same manner as it retrieves records from internal departments and then either produce them, redact them with specific statutory justification, or certify their non existence.

My request also invoked the requirements for native format production and metadata, including that all electronic records be produced in their native formats, such as MSG, EML, PST, XLSX, CSV, ICS, DOCX, and EXIF intact images, and that metadata, including creation and modification dates, authors, file paths, email headers, and version history, be included. Please confirm that attorney invoices, time entry reports, emails, memoranda, and other electronic records responsive to this request will be produced in their native formats with associated metadata, and that native records will not be printed, scanned, or otherwise converted in ways that strip metadata where native files are maintained.

Your counsel’s letter invites me to limit the scope of my request by date range or document type. At this time, I decline to narrow or limit the request. It already contains discrete, clearly defined categories, a specific date range from January 1, 2024 to the present, and explicit instructions about formats, metadata, and redactions. However, consistent with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), I am willing to consider good faith, non prejudicial staging of production that prioritizes records that are easiest to release promptly, such as already compiled invoices and billing records, followed by more complex materials. Any such staging must begin immediately and may not be used to postpone the release of records that are already available.

Finally, I remind you that under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6, in any proceeding challenging a denial of access, the public agency shall have the burden of proving that the denial of access is authorized by law. Your handling of this request, including the timing of your response, the scope of your searches, the retrieval of records from outside attorneys, the application of exemptions, and any redactions, will be evaluated under that burden. I therefore request that any continued delay, denial, or redaction be fully documented with specific statutory citations and concrete factual reasons so that the basis for your determinations can be clearly understood and, if necessary, reviewed.

Because the December 9, 2025 correspondence was issued by outside counsel rather than directly by you as the statutory Records Custodian, I respectfully request written confirmation from you that the extension request and all positions stated in counsel’s letter are your determinations as custodian, that you have personally directed the search for and review of all attorney billing records, legal invoices, time entries, legal communications, and related records responsive to my request, and that all searches, productions, redactions, exemptions, and timing decisions will be made under your authority and in full compliance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to the immediate production of all readily available responsive records, clear and specific written explanations for any withholdings, rolling production as additional records are reviewed, and full compliance with the timing, access, and justification requirements of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).

Sincerely,

John Certo