Dear Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office,

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:

A list of all work assigned to Assistant Prosecutor Meghan Kosavich in 2019.

Yours faithfully,

John W. Milner

Dear Middlesex County OPRA Center,

In your reply to me, you say that a list of work assignments is not made for assistant prosecutors. I do believe you. However, issues of how supervision is maintained, how much crime is in the county, and how much staffing to maintain all come into question.

To address your other issues, in order:

Your statement that your office is not obligated to create responsive records is fallacious. You do create records upon request for internet e-mail communications. To say that records of any sort do not exist (i.e. cite email communications) cannot be true. A record of trials must be kept, somewhere, even if it is a trite list.

You say that that your office is not required to conduct research on OPRA requests, or to siphon or compile data. If you are saying the information does not exist, or it exists in some sort of abstract form that makes it undecipherable, I believe you. Nonetheless, questions about the prosecutor’s office continuing as a going concern now become relevant.

Fourth, exemption 10 of the OPRA law states, “Security measures and surveillance techniques which, if disclosed, would create a risk to the safety of persons, property, electronic data or software”. Please do not apply a work assignment list here. It is fallacious.

Last, the Work Product Doctrine Rule that you cite (Rule of the Court 4:10-2(c)) relates only to court proceedings at the discovery stage of trial. For this, an exemption is needed. However, that is not what we have here. Like exemption 10, your argument is fallacious.

Note: the exemption number above is from the “Citizen’s Guide to OPRA”, dated July 2011.

Yours sincerely,

John W. Milner