Dear Matawan Borough Record Custodian,

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 requested:

Pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq., I request copies of all public records relating to any lawsuit, claim, tort notice, settlement, demand, or legal action involving the Borough of Matawan, its officials, employees, departments, boards, commissions, or insurers from January 1, 2017, through the date of this request.

This request is divided into precise, legally recognized categories:

1. Settlement Records (2017–Present)

For each lawsuit or claim resolved:
• Fully executed settlement agreement, release, stipulation, or order of dismissal.
• Gross settlement amount.
• Amount paid by the Borough.
• Amount paid by insurer/JIF/MEL/excess carrier.
• Date(s) settlement payments were issued.
• Payee(s).
• Any confidentiality clauses (void under NJ law).
• Any Borough Council approvals, resolutions, votes, or authorizations.
• Meeting minutes documenting settlement approval.
• Warrants of satisfaction or insurer closing documents.

Authority: Asbury Park Press v. Monmouth, 406 N.J. Super. 1 (2009); Payton v. NJTA, 148 N.J. 524 (1997).

2. Defense Legal Fees & Costs (2017–Present)

For each lawsuit or claim:
• All invoices, billing statements, line-item entries, hourly rates.
• Total defense fees paid by the Borough.
• Retainer/engagement letters with outside counsel.
• Any insurance reimbursements or indemnification records.
• All billing-related correspondence with counsel or insurer.

Authority: NJ Div. of Law v. Paff, 235 N.J. 1 (2018); Gannett v. Middlesex, 379 N.J. Super. 205 (2005).

3. Insurance Carrier Records (2017–Present)

For each matter:
• Name of insurance carrier, policy number, claim number.
• All correspondence between Borough and insurer regarding settlement approval or payment.
• All indemnification or reimbursement documents.
• Any risk management assessments tied to litigation.

4. Lawsuit/Claim Identification Records

Provide:
• Case name
• Docket number
• Filing date
• Parties
• Resolution date
• Method of disposition (e.g., settled, dismissed, verdict)

If no list exists: Produce any and all records sufficient to identify each matter, as required by Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (2008).

5. Settlement-Related Communications (2017–Present)

All emails, letters, memoranda, or reports between:
• Borough officials
• Borough Attorney
• Defense counsel
• JIF/MEL
• Insurers
• Risk managers
• Council members
that discuss:
• settlement approval
• payments
• legal fees
• insurance coverage
• cost analysis
• litigation impact on Borough finances

Narrative privilege may be narrowly redacted but cannot be used to withhold entire emails.

6. Insurance Premium Increases, Surcharges & Risk Rating Changes

For each year (2017–present):

A. Annual Premium Records

All invoices for:
• JIF
• MEL
• Excess liability
• Law enforcement liability
• Public officials liability
• EPLI
• Workers comp
• General liability

B. Premium Change Documentation

Records showing:
• premium increases/decreases
• surcharges
• deductible shifts
• self-insured retention changes
• risk-tier/risk-category changes

C. Litigation-Linked Adjustments

All notices showing lawsuits or settlements triggered:
• premium hikes
• special assessments
• elevated risk category
• corrective action requirements
• actuarial changes

D. Loss-Run Reports

All loss-runs showing:
• amounts paid per claim
• reserves
• deductibles
• insurer payouts
• impact on future premiums

E. Correspondence About Premium Increases

Emails, letters, reports discussing:
• premium changes
• underwriting decisions
• actuarial assessments
• claims-driven premium increases
• litigation risk evaluations

7. Format Requested

Electronic PDF or native digital format.
Do not print and scan unless no digital version exists.

8. Redaction/Denial Standards (Mandatory)

All redactions must:
1. Be narrowly tailored
2. Cite the precise OPRA statutory exemption
3. Include a Vaughn-style index describing:
o document name
o portion withheld
o specific exemption used

Blanket denials violate N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 47:1A-11.

9. Public Interest Statement

This request concerns the expenditure of public funds, insurance premium increases, and taxpayer-funded liabilities. These are the highest priority public records recognized by OPRA.

Because litigation settlements directly influence public expenditures through premium increases, surcharges, and risk-rating adjustments, all responsive insurance records are public under OPRA, and any claim of confidentiality is void as a matter of law.

10. Mandatory Acknowledgment

Please confirm receipt within 7 business days per N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i).

11. Required Search Obligations (Paff v. Galloway)

A full search must be performed across:
• Borough email servers
• Borough Attorney
• Insurer/JIF/MEL communications
• Local devices used for Borough business
• Shared drives, cloud storage
• Paper and digital archives
• Risk manager systems

12. Overly Broad Denial Prohibited

This request is not overly broad because it:
• identifies a specific timeframe,
• lists discrete, well-defined categories, and
• requests classic OPRA-discoverable records.

13. “Information vs. Records” Denial Prohibited

This request exclusively seeks records, not explanations or answers.

14. Deliberative Process Denial Prohibited

The deliberative process privilege cannot be invoked to withhold:
• settlements
• fees
• insurance payments
• premium changes
• financial impacts

(Gannett v. Middlesex, supra)

15. Certification of Completeness (Mandatory)

If any portion is denied or “no records exist,” you must provide a:
Certification of Non-Existence or Completenessas required by Paff v. NJ DOC and N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).

False certification exposes the custodian to personal liability.

16. Anti-Retaliation Notice

This request is submitted pursuant to statutory right.
Any retaliation or interference violates the First Amendment and Article I, Paragraph 18 of the New Jersey Constitution.

17. Preservation Notice

This OPRA request serves as a formal legal hold.
No responsive record, digital or physical, may be deleted, altered, or destroyed.
Any such action may constitute spoliation.

Respectfully,
John Certo

Dear Records Custodian Wynne,

Thank you for your response.

Under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i), an extension is permitted only where the custodian provides a specific, factual basis explaining why additional time is needed. OPRA and the GRC consistently hold that:

• general statements about “volume,”
• coordination between departments,
• staffing issues, and
• holiday closures
do not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Your extension request provides general administrative statements, but not the required factual detail. Accordingly, please provide the following so I may evaluate the extension request:

1. The approximate number of responsive records;
2. The specific departments that must be searched;
3. Whether any third-party custodians (e.g., Borough Attorney, JIF, MEL, risk managers) must produce records;
4. Whether technical constraints exist and their specific nature;
5. A brief explanation of the actual burden necessitating the December 11 deadline.
Once the statutorily required explanation is provided, I will review the extension request.

Please note: Unless a compliant factual justification is provided, the seven-business-day statutory deadline remains in effect under OPRA.

Respectfully,
John Certo

Good Afternoon Mr. Cohen,

Thank you for your response. After reviewing your explanation, I must note that the Borough’s extension request for my OPRA submission dated November 16, 2025 still does not satisfy the detailed factual justification required under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) and the controlling case law governing OPRA extensions. I want to address several points that remain inconsistent with OPRA’s mandatory requirements:

First, records held by insurers, claims administrators, or risk managers on behalf of the Borough remain public records subject to OPRA regardless of physical location. This principle is established in Renna v. County of Union and reaffirmed in Paff v. Galloway. The fact that certain records “may be maintained off-site” does not toll statutory deadlines and does not constitute a legally valid basis for delay.

Second, settlement agreements involving a public entity cannot be withheld, cannot be classified as personnel documents, and cannot be subjected to confidentiality or redaction except for extremely narrow and inapplicable reasons. This has been settled law for decades under Asbury Park Press v. Monmouth County and Payton v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority. Therefore, reviewing settlement agreements for “classification” or “redaction” does not constitute a valid OPRA extension justification.

Third, administrative inconvenience, staffing reductions, inter-department coordination, and holiday schedules have repeatedly been held by the Government Records Council to be legally invalid bases for extending OPRA deadlines. Case law and GRC decisions make clear that such reasons cannot support a multi-week extension.

Fourth, the Borough recently settled Carew v. Borough of Matawan on October 17, 2025. A settlement executed only weeks ago should be fully accessible, already executed, already reviewed, already approved by the governing body, and immediately producible. There is no legal or practical justification for withholding this settlement agreement or delaying its release.

Fifth, your response still does not provide the specific factual detail required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i), such as the approximate number of responsive records, the specific departments or systems requiring search, whether third-party turnaround times apply and in what capacity, the nature of the logistical burden requiring the December 11 deadline, or any concrete quantifiable explanation. General statements regarding “multiple departments,” “coordination,” “third-party custodians,” “review,” and “holiday closures” do not meet the statutory standard and have consistently been rejected by the GRC as insufficient.

Because a compliant factual justification has not been provided, the seven-business-day statutory deadline remains in effect based on the original request date of November 16, 2025. Failure to provide responsive records within that timeframe constitutes a denial of access under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and may constitute a knowing and willful violation under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11.

Please advise whether the Borough will be providing the required specific factual justification under 47:1A-5(i), or whether the Borough will instead proceed with immediate production of available records, including the Carew v. Borough of Matawan settlement executed on October 17, 2025.

Respectfully,
John Certo

Subject: Clarification Regarding Statutory Deadline

Good Afternoon Mr. Cohen,

I wanted to add one clarification to my earlier email.

Because my OPRA request was submitted on November 16, 2025, the seven-business-day statutory deadline under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) runs from that date. Absent a legally compliant factual justification for an extension, the statutory seven-day deadline remains in effect.

Thank you,
John Certo

Dear Records Custodian Wynne,

I write regarding my OPRA request dated November 16, 2025, submitted via OPRAmachine as “OPRA Request – All Lawsuits, Settlements, Legal Costs, Insurance Impacts & Premium Increases (1/1/2017–Present).” In that request, I asked for “copies of all public records relating to any lawsuit, claim, tort notice, settlement, demand, or legal action involving the Borough of Matawan, its officials, employees, departments, boards, commissions, or insurers from January 1, 2017, through the date of this request,” divided into six numbered categories: settlement records, defense legal fees and costs, insurance carrier records, lawsuit and claim identification records, settlement-related communications, and insurance premium and loss-run records.

For the avoidance of doubt, my reference to “its officials, employees, departments, boards, commissions, or insurers” does not depend on my knowing or listing each individual or entity by name. As a resident, I cannot reasonably be expected to identify every Borough employee, official, department, board, commission, or insurer dating back to January 1, 2017. OPRA assigns that responsibility to the Records Custodian. My request defines the scope; it is the Borough’s obligation to identify which officials, employees, departments, boards, commissions, and insurers fall within that scope and to search their records accordingly.

Under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i), the Borough’s response was originally due within seven business days of November 16, 2025. On November 20, 2025, the Borough acknowledged receipt and requested an extension “to on or before December 11, 2025,” citing the volume and complexity of the request and the need to coordinate among departments. On November 23, 2025, Borough OPRA counsel Jonathan F. Cohen wrote that responsive records were maintained by insurers and risk-management professionals, that those records would need to be requested and reviewed, and that the Borough would provide the responsive records “as soon as they are available, and in any event by the extended deadline.” At the December 2, 2025 public council meeting, Borough Attorney Cohen also stated on the record that I would have “everything” I requested by December 11, 2025.

On December 11, 2025, outside counsel Veronica A. Acevedo, Esq. transmitted a letter “in response to the Open Public Records Act (‘OPRA’) request you submitted to the Borough.” That letter states that my “request is granted, in part,” encloses “responsive documents” and a “log of redactions,” and then requests an additional three weeks, until January 2, 2026, to respond to the remaining categories. The documents actually produced on December 11 were limited to three redacted settlement agreements (Paglia v Borough of Matawan, Stark v Borough of Matawan, and 160 Main LLC v Borough of Matawan), one redaction log (Certo Redaction Log No. 6), and an extension letter titled “Ltr to Certo Extension No. 6.” The copy of that extension letter I received is on outside counsel’s letterhead, signed only by counsel, and does not show you as a recipient or cc.

Your redaction log is expressly labeled as a “List of all records responsive to Requestor’s OPRA request” and lists only those three settlement agreements. No other lawsuits or claims are listed, and no other records (such as invoices, insurer records, premium records, or lawsuit/claim identification lists) are identified as responsive. For all other portions of my request, there was, as of the December 11 response, no production, no written denial citing a specific OPRA exemption, and no certification of non-existence as required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).

Separately, I have obtained from the New Jersey Courts ACMS/eCourts system civil case summaries showing that, between 2017 and the present, the Borough of Matawan has been a party to numerous civil matters beyond the three settlements you produced, and that in at least some of those matters Borough departments (such as the Police Department and Water Department) and a Borough land use board (the Unified Planning/Zoning Board) are also named as parties. By way of example only, the ACMS summaries I obtained show, among others, the following Superior Court civil matters within the 2017–present timeframe in which the Borough or its bodies are parties and which have settlement or completed dispositions:

1. Ramirez v Borough of Matawan (MON-L-003673-12), disposition January 17, 2017, marked as settled.
2. Borough of Matawan v Wisniewski (MON-L-003016-15), disposition May 30, 2017, marked as settled.
3. Preserve at Matawan Condominium v Borough of Matawan (MON-L-002631-17), disposition March 13, 2018, with a settlement disposition.
4. Future Sanitation Inc v Borough of Matawan (MON-L-001749-17), with a Notice of Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal filed in 2018.
5. BCB Community Bank v La Riviera Bar, LLC, et al (including Borough of Matawan) (MON-L-002375-18), disposition April 15, 2019, marked as settled.
6. Paglia v Borough of Matawan (MON-L-003736-18), a Law Against Discrimination case disposed June 28, 2022 as settled (corresponding to one of the settlement agreements you did produce).
7. Borough of Matawan v Lucas Construction Group, Inc. (MON-L-002017-19), disposition June 24, 2019, with a settlement disposition.
8. Zuccaro v Borough of Matawan, Borough of Matawan Police Department, and others (MON-L-002988-19), disposition October 20, 2022, marked as settled.
9. 160 Main, LLC v Borough of Matawan (MON-L-000513-22), consolidated with Borough of Matawan v 160 Main, LLC (MON-L-000410-22), with a 2025 disposition (corresponding to one of the produced settlements).
10. Dianne Duane v Borough of Matawan, Matawan Borough Water Department, and others (MON-L-003158-23), a personal injury case disposed May 22, 2025 as settled.
11. Carew v Borough of Matawan (MON-L-003396-22), a CEPA whistleblower case disposed October 16, 2025 as settled.
12. AMDMB Enterprise, LLC v Borough of Matawan Unified Planning/Zoning Board (MON-L-002172-24), an action in lieu of prerogative writs completed January 10, 2025.
13. “In the Matter of Matawan Boro” (MON-L-000274-25) and related Mount Laurel proceedings, which are actions involving the Borough.

In total, I have provided 23 separate Superior Court civil case summaries involving the Borough, its departments, or its boards during the relevant period. Only three of those 23 matters (Paglia, Stark, and 160 Main LLC) correspond to the settlement agreements you produced on December 11, 2025. For the remaining matters, there has been no production of settlement records, no production of fee or insurer records, no lawsuit/claim identification list, and no custodian certification that responsive records do not exist.

Even for the three produced settlements (Paglia, Stark, and 160 Main LLC), the December 11 production appears incomplete relative to Category 1 of my request. For each resolved lawsuit or claim, Category 1 requests not only the settlement agreement, but also: (1) the gross settlement amount; (2) the amount paid by the Borough; (3) the amount paid by insurers/JIF/MEL/excess carriers; (4) the date or dates when settlement payments were issued; (5) the payee or payees of each payment; (6) council approvals, resolutions, and votes authorizing the settlement; (7) meeting minutes documenting settlement approval; and (8) any warrants of satisfaction or insurer closing/indemnification documents. The December 11 production includes only the settlement agreements themselves (in redacted form). It does not include separate payment records, breakdowns of Borough versus insurer contributions, council approvals, minutes, or closing documents for Paglia, Stark, or 160 Main LLC, nor does it provide a certification stating that such records do not exist.

The redaction log further shows that, for these three agreements, “signatures” have been redacted and those redactions are justified solely by a generic reference to “personally identifiable information and privacy concerns under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.” To the extent those redactions remove the names and signatures of Borough officials or attorneys acting in their official capacity, or the names of parties whose involvement is already reflected in the public court dockets, that explanation does not identify any specific statutory subsection that would exempt those names and signatures from disclosure. OPRA requires that any denial or redaction state the specific legal basis, not only a general privacy reference.

Categories 2 through 6 of my request remain unaddressed as of the December 11 response. No invoices, billing statements, defense fee totals, retainer agreements, reimbursement records, or billing-related correspondence have been produced for any lawsuit or claim, despite Category 2’s detailed request for those items. No insurance carrier records (policy information, claim numbers, indemnification/reimbursement records, or insurer correspondence) have been produced under Category 3. No lawsuit or claim identification list, or equivalent records sufficient to identify each matter, have been produced under Category 4. No settlement-related communications have been produced under Category 5, and no premium, loss-run, or risk-rating records have been produced under Category 6. For each of these categories, there is no custodian certification stating that no responsive records exist, and no written denial stating a specific statutory exemption, as required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).

OPRA assigns responsibility for granting or denying access, and for issuing certifications of non-existence, to the Records Custodian. At this time, there is no certification from you identifying the locations searched (including Borough email systems, the Borough Attorney, outside counsel, insurers, JIF/MEL, risk managers, and other third-party custodians), no certification that no other responsive records exist for the many cases identified above, and no case-by-case explanation of what is being withheld and under which statutory exemption. There is also no certification from you indicating that you reviewed, approved, and adopted the December 11, 2025 extension letter titled “Ltr to Certo Extension No. 6” as your own response and decision under OPRA.

Based on the documentary record, the Borough’s December 11, 2025 response appears inconsistent with several specific requirements of OPRA. For clarity, these apparent compliance issues and the corresponding statutory provisions include:

1. Timeliness and extensions under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i)
a) OPRA requires a response “as soon as possible, but not later than 7 business days after receiving the request,” unless an extension of time is necessary and explained.
b) The Borough requested an extension “to on or before December 11, 2025” and represented in writing that responsive records would be provided “in any event by the extended deadline,” and the Borough Attorney then stated publicly that I would have “everything” by that date.
c) As of December 11, only three redacted settlement agreements, one redaction log, and an extension letter were provided, with no records at all for Categories 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

2. Failure to provide specific bases for non-production under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g)
a) N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) requires that when access to a government record is denied, “the custodian shall indicate the specific basis therefor.”
b) For Categories 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, the December 11 response provided no records, no specific statutory exemptions, and no written explanation for non-production.

3. Failure to provide certifications of non-existence under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g)
a) When a requested record “is not made, maintained or kept on file” by or for the public agency, the custodian must so certify in writing.
b) For all categories where no records were produced (including, but not limited to, lawsuit/claim identification lists, fee records, insurer records, and premium/loss-run records), no custodian certification has been provided.

4. Incomplete redaction justification under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 47:1A-1.1
a) Redactions are treated as partial denials of access and must be supported by a “specific basis.”
b) The redaction log identifies redactions of “signatures” and justifies them only with a general reference to “personally identifiable information and privacy concerns under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1,” without identifying a specific statutory subsection or explaining why the signatures of public officials or attorneys acting in an official capacity would be exempt.

5. Failure to fully recognize “government records” held by third parties under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1
a) N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 defines a “government record” to include information “made, maintained or kept on file in the course of official business” by or for a public agency.
b) The Borough’s November 23 letter acknowledges that records are maintained by insurers and risk-management professionals but does not indicate that all such records have been requested and reviewed, and no insurer, JIF, MEL, or risk-manager records have been produced or certified as non-existent.

6. Lack of a clear custodian response and adoption of counsel’s letters under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 and 47:1A-5(g)
a) OPRA places the duty to grant or deny access, and to certify non-existence, on the records custodian.
b) The December 11 “Ltr to Certo Extension No. 6” is signed only by outside counsel and does not show that you, as custodian, approved, adopted, or issued that letter as your own response under OPRA.
c) No separate custodian certification has been provided describing searches performed, records located, or records not made, maintained, or kept on file.

This OPRA response is now well beyond the original seven business day deadline and beyond the extended deadline the Borough itself requested. In addition, at the December 2, 2025 public council meeting, the Borough Attorney stated on the record that I would have “everything” I requested by December 11, 2025. Despite that commitment, I received only three redacted settlement agreements, a redaction log limited to those three agreements, and an extension letter, and nothing at all for the many other categories in my request. It should not be the case that a single resident, using only public court records, has done more to identify Borough litigation since 2017 than the Borough and its law firm have done in responding to this OPRA request.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consent to any further extension of time beyond what OPRA permits for a full response to this request. In particular, I do not agree to the Borough’s proposed extension to January 2, 2026. The reasons include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. My OPRA request was submitted on November 16, 2025, and the seven business day deadline under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) has already passed.
2. The Borough requested and received an extension “to on or before December 11, 2025,” and the Borough Attorney publicly represented on December 2, 2025 that I would have “everything” by that date.
3. Despite that extension and representation, the December 11 response consisted only of three redacted settlement agreements, a limited redaction log, and an extension letter, with no records at all for Categories 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 and no custodian certification for any missing records.
4. I have independently identified and provided 23 separate Superior Court case summaries involving the Borough or its agencies in the relevant period, demonstrating that the Borough’s three-case production is materially incomplete on its face.
5. The categories I requested (settlement records, fee records, insurer records, case identification lists, and premium/loss-run records) are standard litigation and insurance records that should be known to, and locatable by, the Borough and its counsel; it is not reasonable to shift the burden of identifying these matters to a resident while simultaneously seeking additional extensions.

In light of the above, and relying strictly on the documentary record, I respectfully request that you, as Records Custodian, take the following actions:

1. Confirm that your OPRA search encompasses every “lawsuit, claim, tort notice, settlement, demand, or legal action” involving the Borough of Matawan, its officials, employees, departments, boards, commissions, or insurers from January 1, 2017 through the date of my request, and that it includes, at a minimum, all of the ACMS-identified matters listed in this letter. For any matter excluded from your search, please identify it and explain why you believe it falls outside my request.

2. Produce the lawsuit and claim identification records requested in Category 4 (or, if no consolidated list exists, any and all records sufficient to identify each such matter). If, after a reasonable search, no such records exist, please provide a certification of non-existence under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) that identifies the systems and locations searched.

3. For each identified lawsuit or claim, including but not limited to the matters listed above, produce the full set of settlement records described in Category 1 (including, where applicable, settlement agreements, settlement amounts, Borough and insurer shares, payment dates and payees, council approvals, minutes, and closing documents), or provide, on a matter-by-matter basis, either a specific statutory exemption or a certification that no such records exist.

4. For each identified lawsuit or claim, produce the defense legal fee and cost records requested in Category 2 and the insurance carrier records requested in Category 3, or provide a certification of non-existence and/or a specific statutory exemption for any records withheld.

5. Describe what search has been conducted for settlement-related communications (Category 5) and for insurance premium, surcharge, risk-rating, and loss-run records (Category 6). For each category, either produce the records, provide a log identifying withheld records with specific statutory exemptions, or certify that no responsive records exist, including a description of the locations searched.

6. Re-evaluate the redactions applied to the three produced settlement agreements. For any redaction that withholds the name or signature of a Borough official or attorney acting in an official capacity, either restore the information or identify a specific statutory basis for withholding it. For any remaining redactions, please confirm that only legitimately exempt personal identifiers (for example, medical detail or tax identification numbers) are being withheld and that all non-exempt portions, including settlement amounts and parties, have been disclosed.

7. Provide a written certification from you, as Records Custodian, that:
a) Identifies the offices, systems, and third-party custodians searched;
b) States whether all responsive records located to date have now been produced, subject only to specific redactions and denials with cited exemptions; and
c) For each category where you conclude that no records exist, certifies that conclusion in accordance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g).

8. With respect specifically to the December 11, 2025 letter titled “Ltr to Certo Extension No. 6,” please:
a) State whether you reviewed and approved that letter before or at the time it was issued;
b) State whether you adopt the statements and positions in that letter, including the requested extension and the characterization of the Borough’s OPRA obligations, as your own decision and response as Records Custodian; and
c) If you did not review, approve, or adopt that letter, provide your own custodian statement regarding any extension, the status of the search, and the basis for any continued delay, consistent with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) and 47:1A-5(g).

Please treat this letter as a demand for a full and compliant OPRA response to my November 16, 2025 request. I am actively considering filing a complaint with the Government Records Council, and your response to this letter will form part of that record.

Nothing in this letter waives any rights I may have under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 or any other applicable law. I reserve all rights to seek review by the Government Records Council and/or the Superior Court if a complete, statute-compliant response is not provided.

Respectfully,

John Certo

Dear Records Custodian Karen Wynne,

This is a records preservation notice issued pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9 and the common law right of access. Please preserve, maintain, and not destroy, delete, alter, overwrite, conceal, or modify any records responsive to this OPRA request, as well as any records responsive to all OPRA requests I have previously submitted to the Borough of Matawan, while each request is pending and until each is fully and finally resolved. This preservation obligation applies immediately upon receipt of this notice.

This duty applies regardless of routine or automated deletion policies, email retention limits, backup overwrites, document management schedules, device replacement, or any other internal records management practice.

This preservation obligation applies Borough-wide and includes records maintained by any department, office, official, employee, contractor, or agent acting for or on behalf of the Borough.

This preservation obligation applies to all formats and locations where responsive records may reasonably be maintained, including emails, attachments, drafts, internal notes or memoranda, logs, tracking records, databases, shared drives, cloud storage, third party systems used by or for the Borough, metadata, and system generated records maintained in the ordinary course of business.

This notice is issued by me solely in my capacity as a private New Jersey resident exercising statutory and constitutional rights under the New Jersey Constitution, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Open Public Records Act, and the common law right of access. No adverse action, retaliation, obstruction, or discriminatory treatment may lawfully result from the exercise of these rights.

If any responsive record is later asserted not to exist, please provide the written certification of non existence required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), certifying that a reasonable search was conducted across all systems and departments where responsive records are ordinarily maintained.

This preservation notice does not modify, restart, or toll any statutory response deadlines under OPRA and is issued solely to ensure compliance with existing legal obligations.

This obligation continues through any administrative review or appeal related to these OPRA requests.

Thank you.

John Certo