Dear Ocean County,

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-5(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 requested:

Pursuant to the New Jersey common-law right of access, I request access to the following records relating to the February 15, 2024 incident involving Patricia Baranyay and Nina Charlton-Hagen and the related Internal Affairs matters identified as 2024OFC-015 and 2024OFC-026:
1. The Operations Report and/or incident report authored by or attributed to Lt. Chantanette Ketelaar concerning the February 15, 2024 incident;
2. The Operations Report and/or incident report authored by or attributed to Nina Charlton-Hagen concerning the February 15, 2024 incident;
3. The Operations Report and/or incident report authored by or attributed to CPO Joann Fudali concerning the February 15, 2024 incident;
4. The Operations Report and/or incident report authored by or attributed to CPO Richard Gable concerning the February 15, 2024 incident;
5. Records sufficient to show:
a. the date each report was created;
b. the date each report was submitted or received;
c. any routing, transmission, or tracking entries associated with those reports; and
d. any modification timestamps associated with those reports;
6. The August 8, 2024 communication from Captain Matthew Pedone concerning report generation, together with any follow-up communications specifically concerning whether those reports were completed or submitted.
This request is narrowly directed to factual operational and witness-reporting records concerning the chronology, attribution, and handling of official reports associated with the referenced matter. This request does not seek wholesale disclosure of Internal Affairs investigative files, deliberative memoranda, disciplinary recommendations, or investigative analysis.
The interests supporting disclosure under the common-law balancing analysis are substantial and case-specific. The requested records concern alleged witness observations and attributed communications central to an official accusation and subsequent Internal Affairs review. The chronology reflected in records already produced or otherwise obtained raises legitimate questions regarding when certain witness reports were requested, generated, and relied upon during the Internal Affairs process.
In addition, the identified witness officers have reportedly disputed whether they observed the alleged conduct or communicated such observations as allegedly attributed to them. Under these circumstances, the requested records bear directly upon the integrity, chronology, and reliability of the underlying factual reporting process, rather than generalized review of an Internal Affairs file.
The request is also intentionally narrow. It seeks specifically identified factual and operational records, and I am willing to accept appropriate redactions of legitimately confidential information, including personal identifying information and security-sensitive material. Accordingly, the confidentiality interests identified in Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office may be appropriately protected through redaction, limited disclosure, or in camera review rather than categorical withholding.
To the extent the County contends any requested record is exempt from disclosure in full under the common-law balancing analysis, please identify the specific basis for withholding each category of record and whether the County would oppose submission of the records for in camera review.
I respectfully request that the County give careful consideration to the narrow scope of this request and the significant interests implicated before maintaining a position of categorical withholding. In the absence of a reasonable accommodation through disclosure, redaction, or in camera review, I will evaluate available remedies to obtain judicial review of the balancing analysis applicable to these records.
Please advise within seven (7) business days whether the County will produce the requested records.

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.

Respectfully,

Man “Doe”

Mr. Morris:
Thank you for your response to my common-law right of access request concerning the February 15, 2024 incident and related Internal Affairs matters 2024OFC-015 and 2024OFC-026.
For clarity, this correspondence concerns a request made under the common-law right of access. It is not an OPRA request. I am not asking the County to reconsider an OPRA denial, apply OPRA exemptions, or process this matter under OPRA. The request expressly invoked the common-law right of access and the balancing framework addressed in Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office.
Accordingly, please clarify whether the County performed a common-law balancing analysis separate and apart from any OPRA exemption analysis. If the County maintains that such an analysis was performed, please identify the specific public-interest factors considered, the specific confidentiality interests relied upon, and the reason redaction, partial disclosure, or in camera review was rejected.
Your response clarified several important facts, including the existence of certain records and the dates on which those records were created, submitted, and reviewed. However, several portions of my request, and more importantly the common-law balancing analysis expressly raised in that request, do not appear to have been substantively addressed.
At the outset, your response repeatedly characterizes my request as a “duplicate” request. Respectfully, it is not. My earlier submissions sought records under OPRA. The present request does not. The present request expressly invokes only the common-law right of access. OPRA and the common-law right of access are distinct legal pathways, governed by distinct standards, and requiring distinct analyses.
Under Rivera, the fact that a record may be exempt from disclosure under OPRA does not end the inquiry. Records exempt under OPRA may still be subject to disclosure under the common-law right of access if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the government’s specific need for confidentiality. For that reason, a response based primarily on categorical OPRA exemptions applicable to personnel records, grievance materials, or Internal Affairs records does not resolve a properly asserted common-law request.
Stated plainly: I am not asking whether these records are disclosable under OPRA. I am asking whether, under the common-law right of access, the public interest in disclosure outweighs the County’s specific and articulated confidentiality interests, with consideration of redaction, partial disclosure, and in camera review where appropriate.
My request identified case-specific factors bearing directly on the common-law balancing analysis, including:
1. whether reports central to the underlying allegation were contemporaneously created;
2. the chronology reflected in the records, including creation dates, submission dates, review dates, and the lapse of time between the underlying incident and the creation or submission of several identified reports;
3. whether the sequence of events is consistent with a legitimate, contemporaneous Internal Affairs investigation, or instead reflects after-the-fact report generation, attribution, review, or ratification that requires further scrutiny;
4. whether the requested records are factual operational reports subject to narrower confidentiality concerns, rather than purely deliberative Internal Affairs investigative materials;
5. the narrow scope of the request, which sought identified factual and operational records rather than wholesale disclosure of an Internal Affairs file;
6. whether redaction, partial disclosure, or limited disclosure of factual portions of the records would adequately protect legitimate confidentiality interests;
7. whether in camera review by the Superior Court would permit judicial review of the balancing analysis while protecting any legitimate confidentiality interests;
8. the significance of the fact that identified witness officers have disputed whether they observed the alleged conduct or communicated such observations as allegedly attributed to them;
9. the basis for the statement that no Pedone communication responsive to the request exists, notwithstanding the August 8, 2024 communication concerning report generation previously identified in records and correspondence relating to this matter; and
10. whether any personnel whose conduct, communications, report-generation activity, review, or decisions may be implicated by the requested records participated in searching for, identifying, reviewing, or determining the responsiveness of those records.
The County’s response appears to place substantial weight on the fact that the underlying matter was not sustained, no major discipline was imposed, and the original incident involved employees who were not high-ranking. Those facts may be relevant to the underlying personnel matter, but they do not resolve the common-law balancing analysis presented in my request.
My concern is not the underlying interaction between Baranyay and Nina Charlton, both of whom are civilian employees assigned to the Program Services Unit. My concern is the apparent creation, attribution, review, and use of reports months after the incident, and whether false or misleading claims were made or allowed to stand during the Internal Affairs process.
The chronology identified in the County’s response raises serious questions as to whether the matter was handled as a straightforward, legitimate, contemporaneous investigation. The records and dates identified by the County raise obvious questions as to why reports central to the allegation were created or submitted months after the underlying incident, why certain factual claims appear to have been attributed to individuals who dispute making or observing them, and why the apparent report-generation process occurred only after later Internal Affairs activity. That chronology is itself part of the public-interest analysis because it bears directly on whether the Internal Affairs process was used to investigate facts as they existed, or instead to generate, validate, or preserve a narrative after the fact.
That distinction is critical. The public-interest issue is not limited to the conduct of the civilian employees involved in the original incident. It includes the integrity of the reporting process and the potential involvement or misconduct of supervisory and command-level officials. Lieutenant Ketelaar and Captain Pedone are high-ranking officials within the Department, and both work directly under Warden Joseph M. Valenti. Where the records at issue may bear on whether supervisory or command-level officials generated, directed, reviewed, accepted, or relied upon inaccurate factual claims, the public interest is substantially greater than the County’s response acknowledges.
Relatedly, because the requested records may bear on the integrity of the Internal Affairs process itself, there is a separate concern regarding the neutrality and completeness of the search for responsive records. Please identify whether any Internal Affairs personnel, supervisory personnel, or command staff whose conduct, communications, report-generation activity, review, or decision-making may be implicated by these records participated in searching for, identifying, reviewing, or determining the responsiveness of the requested records. If so, please identify what safeguards were used to ensure that the search and responsiveness determinations were neutral, complete, and not controlled by personnel whose own actions may be at issue.
That concern is heightened by the fact that I am aware of at least one record that appears responsive to the request but was not identified or produced in the County’s response. I am not raising that issue to broaden the request or convert this matter into an OPRA dispute. Rather, it underscores the need for the County to explain the scope of the search, the repositories searched, who conducted the search, who made responsiveness determinations, and whether any personnel whose conduct, communications, report-generation activity, review, or decisions may be implicated participated in that process.
The question is not merely whether discipline resulted from the original Program Services incident. The question is whether the Internal Affairs process itself was used or handled in a manner that concealed, mischaracterized, or legitimized false factual claims. My request raised public-interest considerations involving chronology, attribution, report generation, command review, search neutrality, and the integrity of official factual reporting. Those factors do not appear to have been addressed in any individualized common-law balancing analysis.
To the extent the County maintains that any responsive record contains confidential Internal Affairs, personnel, privacy, investigative, or deliberative material, I am not requesting indiscriminate disclosure of protected information. Rather, I am requesting that the County identify whether redaction, partial disclosure of factual portions, or in camera review by the Superior Court was considered as part of the common-law balancing analysis. These alternatives are especially important where the request seeks specific factual and operational records, rather than wholesale disclosure of an entire Internal Affairs file.
Accordingly, please provide a supplemental response that addresses the common-law right of access analysis, including:
1. the specific common-law balancing analysis performed separate from any OPRA analysis;
2. the chronology and timing issues identified in my request;
3. the significance of reports that appear to have been created months after the underlying incident;
4. whether that chronology is consistent with a legitimate, contemporaneous Internal Affairs investigation;
5. whether the requested records are factual operational reports distinct from deliberative Internal Affairs materials;
6. whether redaction, partial disclosure, or limited disclosure of factual portions of the records was considered;
7. whether in camera review by the Superior Court was considered as an alternative to categorical withholding;
8. the public interest in potential misconduct by supervisory or command-level officials, including Lieutenant Ketelaar and Captain Pedone, as distinct from the underlying Program Services incident involving Baranyay and Nina Charlton;
9. the public interest in determining whether inaccurate factual claims were generated, attributed, reviewed, accepted, or relied upon during the Internal Affairs process;
10. the neutrality and completeness of the search for responsive records, including whether any Internal Affairs personnel, supervisory personnel, or command staff whose conduct, communications, report-generation activity, review, or decision-making may be implicated by the requested records participated in searching for, identifying, reviewing, or determining the responsiveness of the requested records;
11. any safeguards used to ensure the neutrality, independence, and completeness of the search;
12. the County’s explanation for why any record known to exist and apparently responsive to the request was not identified, produced, or otherwise addressed in the County’s response; and
13. the County’s position regarding the August 8, 2024 Pedone communication, including whether the County contends that it does not exist, was deemed nonresponsive, or was withheld pursuant to an asserted exemption or confidentiality claim.
If the County continues to withhold the requested records, please confirm that all disputed records will be preserved and, if judicial review becomes necessary, made available for in camera review so the Superior Court may conduct the individualized balancing required under the common-law right of access. Such review would allow the Court to evaluate the County’s asserted confidentiality interests while also determining whether redaction, partial disclosure, or disclosure of factual portions is appropriate.
This correspondence is not intended to relitigate generalized OPRA exemptions or the underlying Program Services incident involving Baranyay and Nina Charlton. It is intended to clarify whether the County performed the separate common-law balancing analysis required when a requester expressly invokes the common-law right of access, particularly where the requested records may bear on the integrity of the Internal Affairs process, the neutrality and completeness of the search for responsive records, and potential misconduct by supervisory or command-level officials.

Finally, although the underlying request was submitted through OPRAMachine.com, the County’s response was transmitted privately rather than through the public OPRAMachine request portal. To maintain a complete and accurate public record of the request and response history, I will be uploading the County’s response to the OPRAMachine request thread.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Faithfully,

Man “Doe”

George M. Morris, May 26, 2026
Man “Doe”,

This firm represents the County of Ocean as Asst. County Counsel. The
County received two duplicate OPRA and common law requests from you
seeking the following:

Pursuant to the New Jersey common-law right of access, I request access to
the following records relating to the February 15, 2024 incident involving
Patricia Baranyay and Nina Charlton-Hagen and the related Internal Affairs
matters identified as 2024OFC-015 and 2024OFC-026:

1. The Operations Report and/or incident report authored by or attributed
to Lt. Chantanette Ketelaar concerning the February 15, 2024 incident;

2. The Operations Report and/or incident report authored by or attributed
to Nina Charlton-Hagen concerning the February 15, 2024 incident;

3. The Operations Report and/or incident report authored by or attributed
to CPO Joann Fudali concerning the February 15, 2024 incident;

4. The Operations Report and/or incident report authored by or attributed
to CPO Richard Gable concerning the February 15, 2024 incident;

5. Records sufficient to show:

a. the date each report was created;

b. the date each report was submitted or received;

c. any routing, transmission, or tracking entries associated with those
reports; and

d. any modification timestamps associated with those reports;

6. The August 8, 2024 communication from Captain Matthew Pedone concerning
report generation, together with any follow-up communications specifically
concerning whether those reports were completed or submitted.

The County confirms the existence of the following records:

1. 2024OFC-026.pdf

2. 2024OFC-015.pdf

3. 2024OFC-015A.pdf

The above reports contain sub-reports/statements prepared by the
individuals identified in your request. The County has again reviewed
those records and the underlying “operational” reports. The County
concludes the records are personal records, grievance records and/or
internal affairs records not subject to release under the OPRA public
records.

Personnel records – The records in question are classified as personnel
records and are exempt from disclosure. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. OPRA
permits the release of limit materials within a personnel record
including, but not limited to, an employee’s name, date of hire, date of
separation, reason for separation and pension information if maintained by
the agency. The records requested are not subject to release under OPRA.

Grievance materials – Employee grievances, both made by and made against
employees, are not subject to release under OPRA. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1

Internal Affairs Records – Internal affairs records are not subject to
release under OPRA. See Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor’s Office, 246
N.J. 236 (2022). While some records may be released under the common law
right of access, the County must use the test established in Rivera to
determine if the records can or should be released. The prior balancing
test favored not disclosure however, the Rivera Court also add several
additional criteria to consider. Those include the nature and
seriousness of the allegations, whether the misconduct was sustained, the
nature of the discipline imposed, the official’s position and the
individual’s record of past misconduct.

A review of these criteria confirm that these records are not subject to
release under the common law right of access. The underlying matter was
not sustained, there was no major discipline and the subject employee was
not of high rank or subject to prior major discipline. Based on the above,
Sections 1 through 4 of your request are denied.

As to Section 5, the reports indicate the following:

Ketelaar Report – submitted on 9/18/24 and reviewed by Captain Pedone on
9/18/24.

Charlton-Hagen Report – created 6/10/24, delivered to and reviewed by Lt.
Ketelaar on 6/11/24, with a supplemental report created on 6/18/24 and
reviewed on 6/20/24.

Fudali Report – created 8/8/24, delivered and review by Lt. Ingram on
8/8/24.

Fable Report – created 8/8/24, delivered and review by Lt. Ingram on
8/8/24.

As to Section 6 of your duplicate requests, there is no Pedone
communication that is responsive to your request, however, if the record
did exist it would again be exempt from disclosure as a personnel record,
a grievance record and an internal affairs record.

This communication completes your duplicate Open Public Records Act and
common law right of access requests.

Thank you,

George Morris

Asst. County Counsel

George M. Morris , Esquire ​​​​
Shareholder
Municipal & Government
O: [1]856-810-5855
[2][email address]
PARKER McCAY P.A.
9000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300
Mount Laurel , NJ 08054
P: 856‑596‑8900 F: 856‑596‑9631
[3]www.parkermccay.com

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

This e-mail message from the law firm of Parker McCay P.A. is for the sole
use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/tel:856-810-5855
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.parkermccay.com/

Mr. Morris:
Thank you for your June 5, 2026 response.

Respectfully, the County’s position remains conclusory and does not meaningfully address the defects identified in my prior correspondence.

Your response states that you evaluated the request under the common law and the Rivera standards, and that none of the Rivera factors weigh in favor of release. However, the County has still not identified the specific records reviewed, the specific public-interest factors considered, the specific confidentiality interests relied upon, why redaction or partial disclosure was rejected, or why in camera review by the Superior Court is not an appropriate alternative to categorical withholding.

The County’s statement that its prior response “satisfies your ability to understand the process” is precisely the problem.

Respectfully, the County does not satisfy its common-law obligation by deciding that I have been given enough information to understand the County’s preferred version of the process. Rivera requires a balancing analysis, not a conclusory assurance that the requester has been sufficiently educated. The issue is whether the County can defend, record by record, the continued withholding of public records under the common-law right of access where the records may bear directly on the integrity of the Internal Affairs process itself.

The Government Records Council’s recent and prior decisions reinforce why a more specific, item-by-item response is required here. In Paff v. Willingboro Board of Education, GRC Complaint No. 2007-272 (May 28, 2008), the GRC held that a custodian’s response was legally insufficient, even though timely, because the custodian failed to respond to each request item individually, thereby violating N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g). In Diamonte v. Rutgers University, GRC Complaint No. 2022-25 (June 25, 2024), the GRC likewise held that a custodian’s response was insufficient where the custodian failed to address each individual request item and failed to correlate the records produced to the specific requested categories. The defect is not cured merely by producing or referencing certain files; the response must address the request item by item. That principle applies here. The County’s response should identify, for each numbered category and each disputed record, whether responsive records exist, whether they are being produced, withheld, or partially withheld, and the specific basis for any denial or redaction.

Diamonte is also significant because the GRC required a privacy-balancing analysis where privacy interests were asserted. The County’s June 5, 2026 response does not identify the specific privacy, confidentiality, security, or institutional interests allegedly implicated by each record; does not explain the harm from disclosure; does not weigh that harm against the public interest articulated in my request; and does not explain why redaction, partial disclosure, or in camera review would be insufficient.

In Geller v. Township of Lakewood, GRC Complaint No. 2019-200, the GRC did not treat a generalized reference to an internal investigation as automatically sufficient. The agency was required either to disclose the records or provide a certification from the chief executive of the police department clearly stating that the responsive records fell within the Attorney General’s Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures as confidential Internal Affairs investigation records. Accordingly, if the County contends that any responsive record is being withheld as an Internal Affairs record, the County should provide a record-specific explanation and an appropriate certification identifying the factual and legal basis for that claim.

In Graves-Byrd v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, GRC Complaint No. 2022-608 (Jan. 27, 2026), the GRC upheld a denial only where the agency provided a specific correctional-security explanation tied to the contents of the record, including investigative methods, intelligence-gathering methods, surveillance information, and risks to secure facility operations. Graves-Byrd does not support a categorical denial based merely on the labels “Internal Affairs,” “security,” or “correctional facility.” To the contrary, it demonstrates that a custodian relying on those grounds must provide a record-specific explanation and address why redaction, segregation, or partial disclosure would be insufficient.

In Seabrook v. Cherry Hill Police Department, GRC Complaint No. 2004-40, the GRC held that an agency cannot avoid its obligations by treating a written records request as informal, by routing it improperly, or by failing to explain why it cannot comply. Producing or discussing one record does not answer a request for other responsive records. If the County contends that a portion of the request was directed to the wrong custodian, concerns records maintained elsewhere, lacks clarity, or cannot be complied with, the County should say so expressly and identify the proper custodian, the specific ambiguity, or the specific basis for noncompliance.

In Merino v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus, GRC Complaint No. 2003-110, the GRC recognized that records still possessed by an agency remain subject to an access analysis even if a retention schedule may have allowed destruction, and that records reflecting qualifications, training, or conformity with employment requirements are not categorically shielded merely because they relate to a public employee. Merino also underscores that privacy-based withholding requires an actual balancing analysis, not a conclusory assertion of confidentiality.

Taken together, Paff, Diamonte, Geller, Graves-Byrd, Seabrook, and Merino support the same basic proposition: the County must provide an individualized, record-by-record response. A generalized statement that the County considered Rivera, OPRA, personnel confidentiality, grievance confidentiality, Internal Affairs confidentiality, or correctional-security concerns is not enough. The County should identify what was reviewed, what exists, what is withheld, who made the determination, what exemption or confidentiality interest is being asserted, why redaction or partial production was rejected, and how the common-law balancing test was actually applied.

The record now reflects several material concerns with the County’s handling of this request.

First, the County repeatedly characterized the request as “duplicate,” despite the fact that my subsequent correspondence expressly clarified that the request was being pursued under the common-law right of access and not as an OPRA reconsideration request.

Second, the County repeatedly relied upon OPRA-based confidentiality principles, including personnel records, grievance records, and Internal Affairs records, even though the common-law right of access requires a separate balancing analysis and does not end merely because a record may be exempt under OPRA.

Third, the County confirmed the existence of responsive records, including 2024OFC-026.pdf, 2024OFC-015.pdf, and 2024OFC-015A.pdf, and confirmed that those records contain sub-reports/statements prepared by or attributed to the individuals identified in the request. The County also identified creation, submission, and review dates that raise substantial chronology concerns.

Fourth, the chronology identified in the County’s own response raises serious questions regarding whether the matter was handled as a straightforward, legitimate, contemporaneous investigation. The underlying incident occurred on February 15, 2024, yet the County identified reports or supplemental reports created on June 10, 2024, June 18, 2024, August 8, 2024, and September 18, 2024. That sequence bears directly on whether the Internal Affairs process investigated facts as they existed or whether reports were generated, attributed, reviewed, accepted, or relied upon after the fact to support or preserve a particular narrative.

Fifth, the County did not address the concern that certain factual claims may have been attributed to individuals who dispute making or observing them. Nor did the County address whether supervisory or command-level officials generated, directed, reviewed, accepted, or relied upon inaccurate factual claims during the Internal Affairs process.

Sixth, the County did not address the neutrality and completeness of the search for responsive records, including who searched for records, what repositories were searched, who reviewed the results, who made responsiveness or withholding determinations, and whether any Internal Affairs personnel, supervisory personnel, or command staff whose conduct, communications, report-generation activity, review, or decision-making may be implicated participated in that process.

Seventh, the County did not address the apparent existence of at least one responsive record not identified, produced, or otherwise meaningfully addressed in the County’s response.

Eighth, the County’s statement regarding the August 8, 2024 Pedone communication remains unclear. The County states that no Pedone communication is responsive, but also states that if such a record did exist, it would be exempt. That formulation does not clarify whether the County is asserting that no such communication exists, that a communication exists but was deemed nonresponsive, or that a communication exists but is being withheld.

Ninth, at least one substantive response was transmitted privately rather than through the public OPRAMachine request thread, despite that response confirming the existence of responsive records and providing chronology information relevant to the issues raised in the request. That required me to upload the response myself in order to maintain a complete public record and raises additional questions regarding the handling of the request correspondence.

These issues are material, and the GRC decisions cited above confirm that they are procedural and substantive defects, not mere disagreement over disclosure. They go directly to whether the County performed the individualized common-law balancing analysis required by Rivera, whether the County’s search for responsive records was complete and neutral, whether the County properly evaluated redaction, partial disclosure, and in camera review, and whether the denial can withstand judicial review.

At this point, please treat this correspondence as a formal preservation notice. The County, the Department of Corrections, the Warden’s Office, Internal Affairs, County Counsel, and all involved supervisory or command personnel should preserve all records, communications, drafts, reports, emails, memoranda, notes, metadata, logs, review materials, search records, responsiveness determinations, deleted-item records, and electronically stored information relating to:

1. the February 15, 2024 Program Services incident;

2. Internal Affairs matters 2024OFC-015 and 2024OFC-026;

3. 2024OFC-026.pdf, 2024OFC-015.pdf, and 2024OFC-015A.pdf;

4. the creation, submission, review, acceptance, rejection, revision, approval, or use of any report or sub-report related to that incident;

5. any communications involving Lieutenant Ketelaar, Captain Pedone, Warden Valenti, Internal Affairs personnel, County Counsel, or any supervisory or command personnel concerning report generation, review, attribution, factual claims, or witness statements related to the incident;

6. any communication or record concerning the August 8, 2024 Pedone communication or any related report-generation issue;

7. any search for records responsive to my OPRA or common-law requests concerning this matter;

8. any determination that records were responsive, nonresponsive, exempt, confidential, withheld, omitted, or not subject to production;

9. any records showing who conducted the search, what repositories were searched, who reviewed the results, and who made responsiveness or withholding determinations; and

10. any records concerning the County’s purported common-law balancing analysis under Rivera.

This preservation obligation includes active files, archived files, email accounts, shared drives, mobile-device communications, deleted-item folders, metadata, draft documents, prior versions, logs, and any records maintained by or accessible to Internal Affairs, command staff, County Counsel, the Warden’s Office, or the Department of Corrections.

Given the issues now raised, any destruction, alteration, deletion, failure to preserve, failure to identify responsive records, or inability to reconstruct the search and review process may become relevant in any subsequent Superior Court action, including any request for in camera review, discovery concerning the adequacy and neutrality of the County’s search, sworn certifications from involved personnel, subpoenas, adverse-inference relief, or any other remedy deemed appropriate by the Court.

If litigation becomes necessary, I anticipate seeking review not only of the withheld records themselves, but also of the County’s search methodology, the role of any Internal Affairs or command personnel in identifying or withholding responsive records, the basis for the County’s claimed common-law balancing analysis, and whether the County’s handling of this request was influenced by personnel whose own conduct, communications, report-generation activity, review, or decision-making may be implicated by the records.

I also reserve the right to refer the County’s responses, the chronology of report generation and review, the apparent omission of responsive records, the neutrality of the search, and the involvement of Internal Affairs or command personnel to appropriate oversight authorities, including the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office and/or the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability, for review if warranted by the record.

The concern is not the underlying Program Services incident between civilian employees. The concern is whether inaccurate factual claims were generated, attributed, reviewed, accepted, relied upon, or allowed to stand within the Internal Affairs process, and whether the subsequent search and review of responsive records was conducted neutrally and completely.

To avoid any ambiguity, please confirm that all disputed records and all related search, review, withholding, and Rivera balancing materials will be preserved. Please also confirm whether the County is refusing to provide any further explanation of its common-law balancing analysis beyond the conclusory statement in your June 5, 2026 response. I am hopeful this response satisfies your client’s ability to understand the process.

Yours truly,

Man “Doe”