Personal Accounts, Public Business: What New Jersey School Boards Need to Know After Rosetti v. Ramapo

By: Rebeca Rojas, Former Law Clerk

On June 11, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, reminding school boards across the State that, as governmental entities, they are expected to conduct public business with a high degree of transparency.

The public’s right to access government records is a fundamental principle in New Jersey, where the Legislature has clearly enumerated that informed citizenry is essential to a functioning democracy. Specifically, the Legislature and the Courts have routinely established that access to government information enables residents to participate meaningfully in public affairs and hold government officials accountable for their actions.

That principle is embodied in the Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”). Enacted to provide the public with broad access to records maintained by government agencies, OPRA establishes that government records are generally subject to public disclosure unless a specific exemption applies. The statute further provides that any limitations on the public’s right of access should be construed in favor of disclosure. In this way, OPRA reinforces New Jersey’s longstanding commitment to transparency in government.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rosetti addressed an important question: whether email logs relating to government business that are stored in Board members’ personal email accounts constitute government records subject to disclosure under OPRA.

In January 2023, Alex Rosetti submitted an OPRA request to the Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education seeking, among other things, “email logs of all past and current Board members for all email accounts in which they have conducted or discussed Board of Education matters.” The Board declined to produce logs from personal email accounts, taking the position that OPRA does not encompass records maintained in non-government email accounts. The trial court agreed and denied Rosetti’s request, concluding that while government-related emails in private accounts may be subject to OPRA, the same did not extend to email logs generated from those accounts.

The Appellate Division reversed that decision, holding that email logs from Board members’ personal accounts may be subject to OPRA when they relate to Board business. The Appellate Division reasoned that public officials must make a good-faith effort to locate and produce responsive records. If compliance would be unduly burdensome, the agency must support that position with persuasive certifications explaining why. Following this decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court subsequently granted certification to review the issue.

At the center of the Supreme Court’s analysis was the distinction between an email and an email log. An email log is not simply a collection of emails; rather, it is a report generated from metadata associated with those communications. Depending on how it is generated, an email log may include information such as sender and recipient addresses, dates and times messages were sent or received, forwarding and reply information, blind carbon copy (“BCC”) data, and other technical details.

The Court observed that both parties agreed that emails concerning government business, whether sent from a public or private email account, qualify as government records under OPRA. The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Paff v. Galloway Tp., 229 N.J. 340 (2017), which held that email logs generated from government email systems are subject to disclosure because producing such logs constitutes a reconfiguration of existing records rather than the creation of entirely new ones.

Before the Supreme Court, Rosetti argued that Board members could satisfy his request for email logs by searching their personal email accounts for communications relating to Board business and generating logs limited to those responsive emails. He suggested searching inboxes, sent folders, trash folders, and other relevant locations for communications involving Board members or Board-related matters.

The Supreme Court agreed. It held that Board members must conduct reasonable searches of their personal email accounts, or utilize some alternative acceptable method, to identify government-related emails and produce logs reflecting those communications. The Court also emphasized that information unrelated to Board business should be redacted before disclosure.

Importantly, the Court clarified that entire personal email account does not become a government record merely because it contains some communication about public business. Rather, only logs related to government-related emails falls within OPRA’s reach, and public officials have an obligation to undertake appropriate searches of their personal accounts when responding to a valid records request.

The Rosetti decision reinforces New Jersey’s strong public policy favoring transparency in government while recognizing legitimate privacy interests. For school districts and Board members, this ruling serves as an important reminder that conducting Board business through personal email accounts does not shield those communications from OPRA. As a practical matter, boards should encourage members and administrators to use official government email accounts whenever possible for Board-related communications to simplify compliance with public records requests and reduce the need to search personal accounts.

This communication does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC. The information contained herein is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute as legal advice. Readers of this publication herein should not rely upon or use as a substitute for consultation with legal, career and or professional advisors. Nothing herein should be considered advice, recommendation, or an offer to perform services. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.