Emails and metadata concerning the surreptitious audio and videotapes
Dear Pinelands Regional School District,
This is a request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form. Please acknowledge receipt of this message.
Records requested:
All of the metadata associated with the three surreptitiously-recorded audio and videotapes made of me by your students in school year 2019-2020.
The email addresses associated with these three students.
All of the emails sent by and to your administrators, along with the associated metadata, which make reference to any of the surreptitious audio and videotapes.
All of the emails exchanged between your administrators and present and former students, along with the associated metadata, which make reference to any of the surreptitious audio and videotapes.
Yours faithfully,
Paul B Dalnoky
Mr. Dalnoky,
As you are aware, I am the Business Administrator for the Pinelands
Regional Board of Education (the “Board”), which conducts and supervises
the schools of the Pinelands Regional School District (the “District”.) I
am in receipt of your February 20, 2022 OPRA request, which was received
by me on February 23, 2022 as the District was closed for President’s Day.
Your OPRA request sought the following:
1. All of the metadata associated with the three
surreptitiously-recorded audio and videotapes made of me by your students
in school year 2019-2020.
2. The email addresses associated with these three students.
3. All of the emails sent by and to your administrators, along with
the associated metadata, which make reference to any of the surreptitious
audio and videotapes.
4. All of the emails exchanged between your administrators and
present and former students, along with the associated metadata, which
make reference to any of the surreptitious audio and videotapes.
With regard to your first request, on November 15, 2021, you sought the
following:
• All documents in whatever form, including electronic, with respect to
the surreptitious audio and videotapes made of me by the Pinelands
students in school year 2019-2020, including the metadata.
On May 9, 2021, you made the following request:
• The meta data only, and not the actual videotapes, made of me
surreptitiously by your students during my teaching duties at your
high school. This information, inter alia, will allow me to know when
you received the videotapes, and thus your knowledge of the students'
actions and when you knew it.
On May 6, 2021, your request sought the following:
• Any document regarding your students' surreptitious audio and
videotaping of me during school year 2019-2020.
On April 25, 2021 you sought the following:
• With regard to the surreptitious audio and videotapes your students
made of me in the school year 2019-2020, all of the meta data in your
possession.
This is your fourth request for essentially the same records.
As previously noted in all prior communications, in this instance you are
seeking three audio/video recordings made by students in a high school
class, which show you. These, nor their meta data, would be public records
subject to OPRA. Furthermore, the New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized
that “the common-law right of access to public records is not absolute,
[rather] one seeking access to such records must ‘establish that the
balance of its interest in disclosure against the public interest in
maintaining confidentiality weighs in favor of disclosure.’” Keddie v.
Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36, 50 (1997), quoting Home News v. State Dep’t of
Health, 144 N.J. 446, 454 (1996). You have failed to articulate a need for
these documents accordingly. I must also deny access to any such records
under the common-law right of access.
However, as previously stated in all of my previous communications, I’d be
happy to schedule a time for you to come in and view the videos after
signing an appropriate privacy disclosure form, since you are the subject
of the video.
With regard to your second request, I am constrained to deny your request
as it seeks confidential student information and personally identifiable
information.
With regard to your third and fourth request, I am constrained to deny
your request, In accord with MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J.Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005), and its
progeny, in order to specifically identify an e-mail, OPRA requests must
contain (1) the content and/or subject of the e-mail, (2) the specific
date or range of dates during which the e-mail was transmitted or the
emails were transmitted, and (3) a valid e-mail request must identify the
sender and/or the recipient thereof.
Thank you,
As you are aware, I am the Business Administrator for the Pinelands
Regional Board of Education (the “Board”), which conducts and supervises
the schools of the Pinelands Regional School District (the “District”.) I
am in receipt of your February 20, 2022 OPRA request, which was received
by me on February 23, 2022 as the District was closed for President’s Day.
Your OPRA request sought the following:
1. All of the metadata associated with the three
surreptitiously-recorded audio and videotapes made of me by your students
in school year 2019-2020.
2. The email addresses associated with these three students.
3. All of the emails sent by and to your administrators, along with
the associated metadata, which make reference to any of the surreptitious
audio and videotapes.
4. All of the emails exchanged between your administrators and
present and former students, along with the associated metadata, which
make reference to any of the surreptitious audio and videotapes.
On March 3, 2022, I responded in the following manner:
With regard to your first request, on November 15, 2021, you sought the
following:
• All documents in whatever form, including electronic, with respect to
the surreptitious audio and videotapes made of me by the Pinelands
students in school year 2019-2020, including the metadata.
On May 9, 2021, you made the following request:
• The meta data only, and not the actual videotapes, made of me
surreptitiously by your students during my teaching duties at your
high school. This information, inter alia, will allow me to know when
you received the videotapes, and thus your knowledge of the students'
actions and when you knew it.
On May 6, 2021, your request sought the following:
• Any document regarding your students' surreptitious audio and
videotaping of me during school year 2019-2020.
On April 25, 2021 you sought the following:
• With regard to the surreptitious audio and videotapes your students
made of me in the school year 2019-2020, all of the meta data in your
possession.
This is your fourth request for essentially the same records.
As previously noted in all prior communications, in this instance you are
seeking three audio/video recordings made by students in a high school
class, which show you. These, nor their meta data, would be public records
subject to OPRA. Furthermore, the New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized
that “the common-law right of access to public records is not absolute,
[rather] one seeking access to such records must ‘establish that the
balance of its interest in disclosure against the public interest in
maintaining confidentiality weighs in favor of disclosure.’” Keddie v.
Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36, 50 (1997), quoting Home News v. State Dep’t of
Health, 144 N.J. 446, 454 (1996). You have failed to articulate a need for
these documents accordingly. I must also deny access to any such records
under the common-law right of access.
However, as previously stated in all of my previous communications, I’d be
happy to schedule a time for you to come in and view the videos after
signing an appropriate privacy disclosure form, since you are the subject
of the video.
With regard to your second request, I am constrained to deny your request
as it seeks confidential student information and personally identifiable
information.
With regard to your third and fourth request, I am constrained to deny
your request, In accord with MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J.Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005), and its
progeny, in order to specifically identify an e-mail, OPRA requests must
contain (1) the content and/or subject of the e-mail, (2) the specific
date or range of dates during which the e-mail was transmitted or the
emails were transmitted, and (3) a valid e-mail request must identify the
sender and/or the recipient thereof.
On March 4, 2022, you responded in the following manner;
"The test is specifically identifiable. The emails I seek are specifically
identifiable as they reference the surreptitious taping of me by your
students with encouragement of the district.I will allow you an additional
10 calendar days prior to further litigation."
Please be advised, the case law regarding what information is necessary
for a request for e-mails is clear, and is cited above. Your request was
vague, as I am unclear who “you” is, and which administrators you are
referring to. In addition, you did not provide a date range. Lastly, in
addition to the previously stated reasons for my denial, with regard to
your fourth request, I am constrained to deny your request as e-mails
between school employees and students are confidential student records,
and therefore, not subject to OPRA.
Thank you
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 11:08 AM Nicholas Brown <[1][email address]>
wrote:
Mr. Dalnoky,
As you are aware, I am the Business Administrator for the Pinelands
Regional Board of Education (the “Board”), which conducts and supervises
the schools of the Pinelands Regional School District (the “District”.)
I am in receipt of your February 20, 2022 OPRA request, which was
received by me on February 23, 2022 as the District was closed for
President’s Day. Your OPRA request sought the following:
1. All of the metadata associated with the three
surreptitiously-recorded audio and videotapes made of me by your
students in school year 2019-2020.
2. The email addresses associated with these three students.
3. All of the emails sent by and to your administrators, along with
the associated metadata, which make reference to any of the
surreptitious audio and videotapes.
4. All of the emails exchanged between your administrators and
present and former students, along with the associated metadata, which
make reference to any of the surreptitious audio and videotapes.
With regard to your first request, on November 15, 2021, you sought the
following:
• All documents in whatever form, including electronic, with respect
to the surreptitious audio and videotapes made of me by the
Pinelands students in school year 2019-2020, including the metadata.
On May 9, 2021, you made the following request:
• The meta data only, and not the actual videotapes, made of me
surreptitiously by your students during my teaching duties at your
high school. This information, inter alia, will allow me to know
when you received the videotapes, and thus your knowledge of the
students' actions and when you knew it.
On May 6, 2021, your request sought the following:
• Any document regarding your students' surreptitious audio and
videotaping of me during school year 2019-2020.
On April 25, 2021 you sought the following:
• With regard to the surreptitious audio and videotapes your students
made of me in the school year 2019-2020, all of the meta data in
your possession.
This is your fourth request for essentially the same records.
As previously noted in all prior communications, in this instance you
are seeking three audio/video recordings made by students in a high
school class, which show you. These, nor their meta data, would be
public records subject to OPRA. Furthermore, the New Jersey Supreme
Court has recognized that “the common-law right of access to public
records is not absolute, [rather] one seeking access to such records
must ‘establish that the balance of its interest in disclosure against
the public interest in maintaining confidentiality weighs in favor of
disclosure.’” Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36, 50 (1997), quoting Home
News v. State Dep’t of Health, 144 N.J. 446, 454 (1996). You have failed
to articulate a need for these documents accordingly. I must also deny
access to any such records under the common-law right of access.
However, as previously stated in all of my previous communications, I’d
be happy to schedule a time for you to come in and view the videos after
signing an appropriate privacy disclosure form, since you are the
subject of the video.
With regard to your second request, I am constrained to deny your
request as it seeks confidential student information and personally
identifiable information.
With regard to your third and fourth request, I am constrained to deny
your request, In accord with MAG Entertainment, LLC v. Division of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J.Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005), and its
progeny, in order to specifically identify an e-mail, OPRA requests must
contain (1) the content and/or subject of the e-mail, (2) the specific
date or range of dates during which the e-mail was transmitted or the
emails were transmitted, and (3) a valid e-mail request must identify
the sender and/or the recipient thereof.
Thank you,