Dear Ocean County Prosecutor's Office,

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 NJSA 47:1A-6(f), which states that an email from a requestor including all of the information required on the adopted form shall suffice in place of a completed form 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 government records for a commercial purpose.

I AM NOT seeking records in connection with a legal proceeding.

Records SPECIFICALLY requested:

1) Email FROM TAYLOR TOSCANO to JILL HOUCK on December 5th, 2022 including all copied individuals and all attachments, if there are any.

My preferred delivery method for response(s) to this request is by E-mail as attachments. Please confirm you have received this request. If you are not the custodian of records, please forward my request to that person and provide their email address to me for future reference.

Yours Truly,
Erin

Dear Carey, Erin,

This is a request for more a detailed explanation including a privilege log that describes the withheld email (e.g., its general subject matter, why it’s deliberative, or the specific confidentiality statute). Also, was redaction considered to release non-exempt portions? Your agency’s vague assertion that the email is “advisory, consultative, or deliberative” without specifying its content or role in decision-making is insufficient. OPRA requires a detailed justification, such as a privilege log, to support the exemption (see Paff v. Division of Law, 2012). Even if parts of the email are exempt (e.g., deliberative opinions), OPRA requires your agency to redact exempt portions and release non-exempt material, such as factual content or communications not covered by privilege (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g)). Your response does not indicate whether redaction was considered, which is a procedural flaw. The following are the issues with your response that need addressed:

1) Lack of Specificity: The denial fails to provide a detailed explanation or privilege log, as required by OPRA case law.
2) Potential Public Interest: If the email documents ex parte communications or misconduct, the public interest in disclosure (especially for a defendant and their counsel) may outweigh exemptions, particularly for factual content.
3) Failure to Redact: Your agency did not indicate whether it considered releasing redacted portions of the email.

Please provide a privilege log detailing the email’s subject matter, why it qualifies as deliberative or confidential, and whether redaction was considered to release non-exempt portions. The public interest in transparency outweighs any exemption if the communication is an unauthorized ex parte communication and/or a conflict of interest regarding defendant Samaritano and the Ocean County Assistant Prosecutor, Ocean County Vicinage and the Atlantic County Vicinage as well as quite possibly prosecutorial misconduct involved. Please get back to me regarding these issues and supply the information that I have requested. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,
Erin

Dear Carey, Erin,
I'm still waiting. Please respond to my last response that I sent regarding your letter.

Yours sincerely,
Erin