Rajeh A. Saadeh v. Borough of Watchung
This text of Rajeh A. Saadeh v. Borough of Watchung (Rajeh A. Saadeh v. Borough of Watchung) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2215-24
RAJEH A. SAADEH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOROUGH OF WATCHUNG,
Defendant-Respondent. ___________________________
Argued April 29, 2026 – Decided June 8, 2026
Before Judges Smith and Berdote Byrne.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-0463-25.
Lindsay A. McKillop argued the cause for appellant (Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC, attorneys; Rajeh A. Saadeh and Christopher C. Dombakly, on the briefs).
Joseph V. Sordillo argued the cause for respondent (DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman, Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, PC, attorneys; Joseph V. Sordillo, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM Plaintiff, Rajeh A. Saadeh, appeals the trial court's order denying his order
to show cause (OTSC) and dismissing his complaint seeking certain police
records from defendant Borough of Watchung. After a vehicle-pedestrian car
accident, plaintiff filed a request for records under the Open Public Records Act
(OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13. The police department informed plaintiff that
it could not produce the requested records because the prosecutor's office, which
was investigating the matter as a bias claim, had them. The trial court rejected
plaintiff's subsequent OTSC and dismissed the complaint. The court determined
that plaintiff had no viable cause of action because the records were not in
possession of the police department.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that Watchung is obligated to produce the
records under OPRA and the common law right of public access. Because
defendant created the records, it is obliged to produce them under Simmons v.
Mercado, 247 N.J. 24, 40-41 (2021). Therefore, we reverse.
I.
On February 4, 2025, plaintiff's mother was walking through a parking lot
in Watchung, wearing a hijab, a headscarf worn by Muslim women. While
walking, an unidentified male struck Ms. Saadeh with his vehicle. Plaintiff
alleges this was an intentional act and a religiously motivated hate crime. A
A-2215-24 2 Watchung police officer responded to the scene of the accident and prepared
report number 25-02359.
On February 5, 2025, plaintiff sent Watchung a request for police
documents, videos, and records pertaining to the incident and the corresponding
investigation under OPRA and the common law right of access. The request
stated:
Regarding police case number 25-02359 involving [plaintiff's mother] and any other person regarding the incident on February 4, 20251, at or around the Walmart in Watchung:
-all documents and records, including photos, dashcam videos, bodycam videos, notes, reports, and any other documents or records.
On February 6, 2025, defendant's police department responded to
plaintiff's request via email, stating in pertinent part:
We have received your OPRA request regarding #25- 02359. Unfortunately, we are unable to release any reports or videos at this time due to the matter being forwarded to the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office while it is under review for a possible bias incident. Please feel free to check back at a later date . . . .
1 Plaintiff's documents represent the date of the incident as February 4, 2025, while defendant asserts the date was February 4, 2023. A-2215-24 3 On March 24, 2025, plaintiff filed a verified complaint and OTSC seeking
the records. The complaint was grounded in OPRA and the common law right
of access. The Borough of Watchung was named as the sole defendant. On
March 26, 2025, the trial court denied the order to show cause and dismissed
plaintiff's complaint without prejudice, stating "[d]efendant cannot comply with
the OPRA request due to records being at the Somerset County Prosecutor's
Office." The record shows Watchung was never served with the complaint and
entered no appearance before the trial court.
II.
A trial court's decision regarding summary actions, including an OTSC
and its corresponding complaint, brought pursuant to Rule 4:67, is governed by
our civil standards of appellate review. N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. State, Off.
of Governor, 451 N.J. Super. 282, 295-96, 308 (App. Div. 2017). We defer to
the trial court's factual findings, which are binding on appeal when they are
supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence. Balducci v. Cige, 240
N.J. 574, 595 (2020). Findings of law, however, are reviewed de novo. State v.
Zingis, 259 N.J. 1, 14 (2024).
A-2215-24 4 III.
Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by denying the OTSC and dismissing
his complaint, because Watchung's police department is required to disclose the
requested records.
In Simmons, our Supreme Court has articulated a clear holding that
governs this appeal. Where an agency supplies information needed to create a
governmental record, that agency must disclose the record, regardless of who
maintains it. 247 N.J. at 40-41. Law enforcement officers create government
records when they, in the course of their official business, input information
pertinent to a case into a pre-developed document for their records. Id. at 40.
Here, plaintiff requested all documents, videos, and records pertaining to
a specific accident investigation, pursuant to OPRA and the common law right
of access. This includes the police incident report, a government record created
to document the incident and launch the department's investigation. Ibid.
Watchung's denial of the request, and the trial court's order, are both premised
on the fact that the SCPO, not Watchung, possessed the sought-after records.
Simmons eliminates that justification for non-disclosure of records, 247 N.J. at
40, and we conclude the trial court's order rejecting plaintiff's summary
application was premature, and therefore in error.
A-2215-24 5 The inquiry does not end here. Watchung contends even if we conclude
that the trial court committed error by rejecting plaintiff's summary application,
the sought-after records are internal affairs documents which are exempt from
OPRA requests, pursuant to Rivera v. Union County Prosecutor's Office, 250
N.J. 124 (2022), and cannot be disclosed. We disagree. Rivera holds that:
police internal affairs records are not governmental records for purposes of
OPRA, and may not be disclosed under that statute. However, such records may
be disclosed under the common law right of access if the public interest favoring
disclosure outweighs concerns for confidentiality. Id. at 136.
Rivera articulates an analytic scheme which balances the confidentiality-
based factors of Loigman v. Kimmelman, 102 N.J. 98, 113 (1986), and the public
interest-based factors under Rivera. On remand, the trial court should conduct
the necessary analysis with a more fulsome record and "best assess any
potentially legitimate confidentiality concerns by reviewing the [records] in-
camera and making appropriate redactions." Rivera, 250 N.J. at 150.
We therefore reverse the trial court's order dismissing the complaint and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rajeh A. Saadeh v. Borough of Watchung, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rajeh-a-saadeh-v-borough-of-watchung-njsuperctappdiv-2026.