A dispute over public access to government attorney training materials has led an appellate court to order further review after a transparency organization claimed its rights were violated when access was denied. The case highlights ongoing questions about the balance between government transparency and confidentiality in legal training for state officials.
The Association for Governmental Responsibility, Ethics and Transparency filed an appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, on March 11, 2026, against the State of New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Law, and Octavia Baker as custodian of records. The appeal followed a trial court’s decision to dismiss the association’s complaint seeking access to written materials from a mandatory training course for deputy attorneys general.
According to court documents, the Association requested on May 3, 2024, copies of webinar and course materials from an April 10, 2024 program titled “Ethically and Effectively Representing State Agencies.” This course was part of the Basic Civil & Administrative Practice Series provided by the Attorney General’s Advocacy Institute. The Institute describes itself as providing legal education programs for government lawyers including deputy attorneys general and county prosecutors.
Octavia L. Baker, serving as records custodian for the Division of Law (DOL), denied the request on May 10, 2024. She cited regulations stating that internal training materials are confidential if they may reveal legal strategy or privileged information: “Trainings and training materials are not open to those who are not government attorneys,” Baker wrote. She referenced N.J.A.C. 13:1E-3.2(a)(3), which exempts certain standard operating procedures and manuals from disclosure under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA).
In response, counsel for the Association argued that these exemptions did not apply because “the requested materials should not reveal ‘case or matter specific legal strategy or advice, attorney work product, attorney-client privileged material, or other privileged material.’” They also suggested any sensitive content could be redacted and asked for a Vaughn index—a document justifying each redaction.
After further correspondence failed to resolve the issue, the Association filed a verified complaint on June 24, 2024 in Mercer County Superior Court. It sought a judgment declaring that defendants had violated OPRA and common law rights by failing to produce the requested materials; it also asked for production of those materials or a Vaughn index if necessary; and it requested attorney fees under relevant statutes.
Defendants submitted certifications from Margaret Cotoia (director of the Advocacy Institute) and Michael Walters (assistant attorney general who taught the course). Cotoia stated that programs like this provide instruction on legal strategies relevant to representing state agencies but are only open to eligible government attorneys. Walters described preparing PowerPoint slides summarizing case law and professional conduct rules tailored to issues faced by DOL deputies.
On September 30, 2024, after hearing arguments but without reviewing the actual course materials themselves, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The judge found that “the requested documents reveal specific legal strategy and advice” based on submitted certifications alone—concluding they were exempt from OPRA disclosure under N.J.A.C. 13:1E-3.2(a)(3). The court also determined that plaintiff’s interest in how state attorneys are trained did not outweigh confidentiality concerns under both OPRA and common law standards.
The Association appealed this ruling. In its March 26, 2026 opinion authored per curiam by Judges Gummer, Paganelli, and Vanek, the Appellate Division vacated the trial court’s order due to insufficient factual basis: “Because the trial court did not conduct an in camera review of the documents before rendering its decision,” wrote the panel, “we vacate the order and remand with instructions that the court conduct an in camera review.”
The appellate opinion emphasized that courts must inspect contested documents privately when confidentiality is claimed so they can properly weigh competing interests: “An in camera review provides parties with an opportunity…to address general principles relative to confidentiality,” citing prior precedent requiring such reviews in similar cases.
The panel directed that upon remand—and after reviewing all disputed material—the lower court must reconsider whether exemptions apply under OPRA regulations or doctrines such as attorney work-product privilege. If any parts are found exempt but others are not confidential or privileged by law or regulation, partial disclosure with redactions should be considered.
Regarding common law access claims—which require balancing public interest against governmental need for secrecy—the appellate judges found again that without seeing what is actually contained in these training documents such balancing cannot be properly performed: “We also vacate…the order dismissing plaintiff’s common-law claim…directing [the] court to conduct an in camera review…and only then complete a fact-sensitive balancing test.”
The appellate division stayed its own opinion for thirty days so either party could seek Supreme Court review before any transfer or inspection occurs at trial level: “We hope that preserving status quo…will minimize disruption and avoid potential consequences of any interim disclosures.”
Representing appellant was Donald F. Burke (Law Office of Donald F. Burke); respondents were represented by Deputy Attorney General Daniel W. Knox along with Jennifer Davenport (Attorney General), Donna Arons and Raymond R. Chance III (Assistant Attorneys General). The case is identified as Docket No. A-0716-24.
