Dear Elizabeth Board of Education and Mr. Kennedy,

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. The records I am requesting fall under the immediate access clause.
Records requested:
Contracts of:
Mr. Richard Flaum, esq
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C.
Invoices of:
Mr. Richard Flaum, esq
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C.
Budgets of:
Mr. Richard Flaum, esq
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C.
Vouchers of/to:
Mr. Richard Flaum, esq
DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C.

Again, these records fall under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(e) "e. Immediate access ordinarily shall be granted to budgets, bills, vouchers, contracts, including collective negotiations agreements and individual employment contracts, and public employee salary and overtime information."

Please send these records digitally.

Yours faithfully,
Danielle Fienberg

Dear Harold Kennedy,

You are out of compliance with the immediate access N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(e). "See Herron v. Twp. of Montclair, GRC Complaint No. 2006-178 (February 2007): The Council held that “immediate access language of OPRA (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(e)) suggests that the Custodian was still obligated to immediately notify the Complainant . . .” Inasmuch as OPRA requires a custodian to respond within a statutorily required time frame, when immediate access records are requested, a custodian must respond to the request for those records immediately, granting or denying access, requesting additional time to respond or requesting clarification of the request."

Please see Verry v. Borough of South Bound Brook (Somerset), GRC Complaint No. 2013-43 et seq.
(Interim Order dated September 24, 2013): "[A] valid OPRA request requires a search, not research. [...]When it comes to [...] documents stored on a computer, a simple keyword search may be sufficient to identify any records that may be responsive to a request."

Also of note. Burke V. Brandes, "[...] valid under OPRA because it “was confined to a specific subject matter that was clearly and reasonably described with sufficient identifying information . . . [and] was limited to particularized identifiable government records, namely, correspondence with another government entity, rather than information generally.”

The records I have requested are specific, narrow, and limited in scope. Again, I ask you to produce the:
Contracts, Invoices, Budgets, Vouchers in regards to Mr. Flaum (the specific individual) and DiFrancesco, Bateman, Coley, Yospin, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, P.C (the specific legal firm.) As you know, and as publicly available records indicate, there is a narrow period of time in which this firm and this individual would have records with this district due to their appointment in January of 2016, and as such, they are identifiable and retrievable from that period through now.

Yours sincerely,
Danielle Fienberg