Dear Piscataway Township,

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:

List of all EMS calls that received an ambulance response from September 6, 2021 to present.

Records are requested to include:

- Date of service
- Time of service
- Address of service
- Name of responding EMS service

Yours faithfully,

Herb Tarbous

Kelly Mitch, Piscataway Township

6 Attachments

Good Afternoon,
Attached are the only lists that the Township has in its possession.
Please note that these lists are not all ambulance response calls as these
lists only include direct dispatch by the Township police department.
During that period, Robert Wood Johnson and Hackensack JFK have also
directly dispatched ambulances and after October 2021, the Township has
not done any direct dispatches and therefore there are no further lists
beyond the two lists attached. I have attached the lists for November and
December that are blank for your reference.


The only way the Township would be able to provide the information you
requested would be to create a record, which is not required under OPRA.


Matthews v. City of Atlantic City (Atlantic), GRC Complaint No. 2008-123
(February 2009): The Council decided that a custodian “was under no
obligation to create a list compatible to the Complainant’s OPRA request
because OPRA does not require a custodian to produce new documents . . .”
Id. at 6.


Librizzi v. Twp. of Verona Police Dep’t, GRC Complaint No. 2009-213
(August 2010): The Council held that the custodian was under no obligation
to create a record in response to the complainant’s OPRA request.


Goeckel v. Chatham Borough Police Dep’t (Morris), GRC Complaint No.
2013-356 (July 2014): The Council noted that “[t]he GRC has determined
that a custodian was under no obligation to provide a record that had not
been created at the time of an OPRA request. Blau v. Union Cnty., GRC
Complaint No. 2003-75 (January 2005); Paff v. v. Neptune Twp. Hous. Auth.
(Monmouth), GRC Complaint No. 2010-307 (Interim Order dated April 25,
2012); Delbury v. Greystone Park Psychiatric Hosp. (Morris), GRC Complaint
No. 2013-240 (Interim Order dated April 29, 2014).” Id. at 3.


Further, a request for said records that include that content would
require individual review of CAD reports. A quick search of CADs shows a
total of 18832 incidents for the period requested. Please note that if a
request for these records is the intention, this request is overly broad
and therefore denied. Requests must be made for specific identifiable
documents to allow the Township to reasonably search for said documents
rather than research to determine which documents may or may not be
responsive (See Donato v. Township of Union, GRC Complaint No. 2005-182
(February 2007), and Burnett v. County of Gloucester, (App. Div. 2010).


Additional case law confirming same is as follows:


Lagerkvist v. Office of the Governor, 443 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div.
2015): Here, the court held that Defendant’s statement that the otherwise
invalid request was “unclear” was adequate when paired with applicable
case law. Further, the court reasoned that the Plaintiff’s request:
[W]ould have had to make a preliminary determination as to which travel
records correlated to the governor and to his senior officials, past and
present, over a span of years. The custodian would then have had to
attempt to single out those which were third-party funded events. Next, he
would have had to collect all documents corresponding to those events and
search to ensure he had accumulated everything, including both paper and
electronic correspondence. OPRA does not convert a custodian into a
researcher, Id. at 237. The court finally held that Defendant was under no
obligation to accomplish a “reasonable solution” when a request is invalid
because it is overly broad. The court disagreed with Plaintiff’s argument
that the “substantial disruption” portion of OPRA at N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g)
required custodians to attempt to reach a reasonable accommodation when
responding to an overly broad request.


MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcohol Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534
(App. Div. 2005): The Court held that "[w]hile OPRA provides an
alternative means of access to government documents not otherwise exempted
from its reach, it is not intended as a research tool litigants may use to
force government officials to identify and siphon useful information.
Rather, OPRA simply operates to make identifiable government records
‘readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination.’ N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1." (emphasis added). The Court further held that "[u]nder OPRA,
agencies are required to disclose only ‘identifiable’ government records
not otherwise exempt . . . In short, OPRA does not countenance open-ended
searches of an agency's files." Id. at 549 (emphasis added).  


Your request is now closed.

Thank you,



Kelly Mitch

Deputy Township Clerk
[1][IMG] Clerks Dept

[email address]

[2][IMG]  [3][IMG] 


Visible links