Summary of Judge Harvey Bartle’s decision in Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform, LLC (D.N.J.):
Daniel’s Law, a New Jersey statute, allows certain individuals in the justice system and their immediate family members to request that their home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers not be disclosed. The law was enacted in response to a tragic incident where a lawyer attempted to assassinate a judge at her home, resulting in the death of her son. The law aims to enhance the safety and security of public officials and their families, enabling them to carry out their duties without fear of personal reprisal.
Under Daniel’s Law, covered persons include judicial officers, law enforcement officers, child protective investigators, prosecutors, and their immediate family members. Entities must comply with requests to withhold this information within 10 business days.
The court found that Daniel’s Law restricts speech based on content but upheld it against a facial challenge. The law aims to protect the privacy of covered individuals and serves a compelling state interest in safeguarding public officials from threats and violence. The court acknowledged potential challenges based on newsworthiness in specific cases.
The court assessed the importance of home addresses and unpublished phone numbers, concluding that they are not matters of public significance. The law’s restrictions do not hinder public oversight of officials. Any potential newsworthy instances can be challenged on a case-by-case basis.
Furthermore, the court recognized the necessity of protecting officials from threats, highlighting the increasing number of threats and attacks on law enforcement personnel in recent years. The law’s exemptions and distinctions were deemed reasonable and not discriminatory.
The New Jersey Legislature has been faced with a challenging issue regarding the protection of covered persons who are in the public eye and uphold the rule of law. The defendants have raised concerns about certain aspects of Daniel’s Law, particularly regarding the broad reach of the non-disclosure notice and the definition of “disclose.” However, the Legislature’s decision to allow covered persons to request non-disclosure preemptively was deemed reasonable in order to effectively protect their safety. Additionally, the argument that a protective order would be a sufficient remedy is disputed, as it may not be effective once the information has already been released. Ultimately, the court found the legislative scheme to be valid.
Plaintiffs in this case are being represented by Rajiv D. Parikh of Pem Law LLP.
Source link
