<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>New Jersey - Local Open Government Blog</title>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/articles/public-records/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:13:45 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:45:11 -0800</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>New Jersey Appellate Court Holds Judicial Privilege May Not Be Absolute Outside Traditional Litigation Setting; Expunged Criminal Record</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In <em>Nunez v. Pachman</em>, 2009 WL 5084084 (N.J. Super., A.D., Dec. 29, 2009), the Court was called upon to decide whether a verbal reference in an arbitration to an expunged criminal record could violate a reasonable expectation of privacy and give rise to a cause of action sounding in tort. In New Jersey, &ldquo;expungement&rdquo; requires &ldquo;all&rdquo; records of a conviction to be destroyed. This in turn can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court noted that other states&rsquo; laws on expungement may be less strict, and cited cases holding that no claim for violation of a right to privacy existed in those states, under different expungement laws.<br />
<br />
The absolute privilege from defamation actions for statements made in judicial proceedings may not apply outside traditional judicial litigation for a, because the protections from wrongful disclosure, like motions in limine, court-ordered sealing of documents, etc., may not apply.&nbsp; The court held that protection of attorneys and witnesses in arbitrations unrelated to the subject matter of the privacy claim (here, in a union grievance arbitration, the fact that the union member had been arrested and convicted, though the conviction was expunged, the expunged conviction was not truly germane to the proceedings) was only <em>qualified immunity</em>, and the attorney could be liable for invasion of privacy unless, on remand, the attorney satisfied a several-factor test.<br />
<br />
Thus when records are made privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure, there may be some basis for a claim that revelation of those records outside the traditional judicial setting could give rise to liability, even though the case was in alternative dispute resolution.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/02/articles/public-records/new-jersey-appellate-court-holds-judicial-privilege-may-not-be-absolute-outside-traditional-litigation-setting-expunged-criminal-record/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.localopengovernment.com/2010/02/articles/public-records/new-jersey-appellate-court-holds-judicial-privilege-may-not-be-absolute-outside-traditional-litigation-setting-expunged-criminal-record/</guid>
<category>Expungement</category><category>Immunity</category><category>In the courts</category><category>New Jersey</category><category>Public Records</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:13:45 -0800</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Milt Rowland</dc:creator>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>