Lauren James-Weir

Ms. James-Weir provides litigation counseling primarily in the areas of First Amendment and media law and has played a significant role in advancing media law in the state of New Jersey. Ms. James-Weir serves as Co-General Counsel to, and a lobbyist for, the New Jersey Press Association. In these roles, she reviews bills introduced by the New Jersey Legislature, identifies those bills that impact the media industry, and advises the Association with respect to same. She also drafts position papers on behalf of the Association, meets with sponsors of legislation affecting the media, and testifies before legislative committees on media-related legislation.

She represents both media and non-media clients in matters involving New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access, as well as the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This includes effectively drafting records requests, challenging denials of access, and determining the laws’ applicability to specific entities. Ms. James-Weir also advises government clients regarding the specific exemptions from access set forth in OPRA and assists clients that submit sensitive information to the state or other government entities in the clients’ efforts to keep that information confidential.

Ms. James-Weir has constructed arguments for, and drafted briefs in, the following media cases before the New Jersey Supreme Court on behalf of the New Jersey Press Association:

• Petro-Lubricant Testing Labs., Inc. v. Adelman, 233 N.J. 236 (2018)
  The question raised in this defamation case was whether edits made to an existing online article subsequent to the expiration of the statute of limitations constituted a republication of the article. In a 4-3 opinion, the majority set forth a two-pronged test, holding that republication occurs to an online article if an author makes a material and substantive change to the original defamatory article.
• North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst, et al. (2017)
  This case dealt with access to the names of the officers involved in a fatal shooting and copies of the Use of Force Reports (UFRs), dash-cam videos, activity logs, various investigative reports, and other related items. The court held, in relevant part, that because UFRs are required by an Attorney General Directive to be made, maintained, or kept on file, they fall outside of the “criminal investigatory exemption” contained in OPRA. This decision is a major victory for media entities, as it stands for the proposition that records that are required to be made, maintained, or kept on file by an Attorney General Directive, Guideline, or Policy fall outside of the “criminal investigatory exemption” and must be disclosed unless they fall within another exemption from access under OPRA.
• Paff v. Galloway Twp., 229 N.J. 340 (2017)
  This case involved a government record request for electronically stored information. Specifically, the request sought portions of electronic records, but not the entirety thereof. The court agreed with the New Jersey Press Association’s argument that such electronically stored information is itself a government record under the Open Public Records Act and remanded the case to the trial court.
• Matter of New Jersey Firemen’s Association Obligation to Provide Relief Applications Under Open Public Records Act, 230 N.J. 258 (2017)
  This case involved a government record request made to the New Jersey Firemen’s Association. The Fireman’s Association denied access to the requested records and filed a declaratory judgment action to obtain a judicial determination of its responsibilities under the Open Public Records Act. The New Jersey Press Association successfully argued that the declaratory judgment action was improper because, at the time it was filed, the Firemen’s Association had already made a determination of its legal obligation with respect to the requested records and denied access to same, thereby extinguishing the controversy between the parties. The court also agreed with the New Jersey Press Association’s argument that, once the Firemen’s Association denied access to the requested records, the Open Public Records Act authorized only the requestor to seek judicial review of that decision.
• Nuwave Inv. Corp. v. Hyman Beck & Co., Inc., 221 N.J. 495 (2015)
  The questions presented in this defamation case were, following the court’s decision in W.J.A. v. D.A.: may presumed damages be awarded in a defamation action where actual damages are proven and, if so, may presumed damages be awarded in more than a nominal amount? The court agreed with the New Jersey Press Association and held that presumed nominal damages are permitted in lieu of, not in addition to, compensatory or actual damages, and there is no need to presume any damages when compensatory or actual damages have been proven.
• W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229 (2012)
  This defamation case involved a private dispute between an uncle and nephew. The New Jersey Press Association argued that presumed damages, which are not available for speech about public officials, public figures, or matters of public concern absent a showing of actual malice, are inappropriate in such cases. The court agreed and held that presumed damages have limited viability, in the form of nominal damages, in cases brought by private plaintiffs where the subject of the alleged defamatory statements is of purely private concern.
• Durando v. Nutley Sun, 209 N.J. 235 (2012)
  This defamation action arose out of an admittedly incorrect teaser headline. The New Jersey Press Association successfully argued that such a mistake does not rise to the level of fault required in defamation actions involving matters of public concern, i.e., actual malice, which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
• G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275 (2011)
  This case involved the question of whether an expungement foreclosed a newspaper from reporting on the underlying conviction and whether truth was a defense to a lawsuit asserting defamation or invasion of privacy. The court concurred with the New Jersey Press Association’s argument that truth is a defense in such a case and that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that was in the public domain prior to an expungement.
• Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group Inc., 201 N.J. 500 (2010)
  The issue in this defamation case was whether the fair report privilege attaches to first filed pleadings. The court adopted the New Jersey Press Association’s argument that, as long as a news story “fully, fairly and accurately” reports on the contents of a first filed court pleading, there is an absolute privilege afforded to the newspaper/reporter for that report, regardless of whether a responsive pleading has been filed.