Preview
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344
Philadelphia Office
Mark S. Levy Rittenhouse Square
John W. Baldante 1845 Walnut Street
Lawrence D. Finney Suite1300
Martin G. Rubenstein Philadelphia, PA 19103
Kyle J. Keller (215) 735-1616
89 North Haddon Avenue (215) 545-2642 (Fax)
Gabriel C. Magee ¥ Suite D
Mark R. Cohen
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Stacy L. Hughes Attorney Email
Daniella Price gmagee@levybaldante.com
Danielle DerOhannesian Ϫ
(800) 601-1616
Aron Minkoff Ϫ (856) 424-8967
(856) 795-7447 (Fax)
Certified by the Supreme Court of New www.levybaldante.com
Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney
National Board of Trial Advocacy
Certified Civil Trial Attorney
Member of Pennsylvania & New Jersey Bar
¥ Member of Pennsylvania, New Jersey & Washington DC Bar
Ϫ Member of Pennsylvania, New York & New Jersey Bar
December 6, 2023
Via eCourts
Honorable David V. Nasta, J.S.C.
Bergen County Justice Center
10 Main Street
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
RE: L.D. Doe v. Bergenfield Board of Education, et al.
Docket No.: BER-L-7525-21
File No.: 45985.851
Dear Judge Nasta:
Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal Response in opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Compel the certification ordered on November 16, 2023 and contact information for Plaintiff’s
adult children, as well as for a Protective Order preventing Defendant from contacting or deposing
Plaintiff’s adult children in this matter.
Defendant asks this Court to compel contact information for Plaintiff’s children for two equally
flawed reasons. First, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s children will have information related to the
whereabouts of their mother. Second, Defendant now also claims that he is entitled to depose the adult
children because they will have information related to Plaintiff’s claims. For the reasons detailed below,
this Court should reject both arguments, deny Defendant’s Motion, and issue a Protective Order
preventing Defendant from contacting or deposing Plaintiff’s adult children.
First, Defendant asks this Court to compel Plaintiff to provide the contact information of his adult
children so that Defendant may attempt to depose them in order to obtain contact information for their
mother. This should be rejected because the burdensome and harassing nature of this request far
outweighs any probative value. In addition, Defendant’s request is also redundant, and Defendant has a
less burdensome means of obtaining this information. R. 4:10-2(g).
1
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 2 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344
As an initial matter, Plaintiff has already repeatedly attempted to provide contact information for
his ex-wife, with whom he no longer has a relationship. Defendant has repeatedly sought this information
and Plaintiff has provided everything he could locate to comply with these requests. This includes
contacting his adult children to try to locate additional contact information. Despite Defendant’s
assertions to the contrary, Plaintiff has provided the certification required by this Court. On November 29,
2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed counsel for Defendant and confirmed that Plaintiff does not have any
further direct or indirect information regarding the whereabouts of his ex-wife. See attached Ex. A, Pltf.
Cert. Email to Defense. In order to make this certification, the Plaintiff reached out to his adult children
and none of them have provided him with any additional information regarding the whereabouts of his ex-
wife. Therefore, Plaintiff has complied with this Court’s November 16, 2023 Order and the request for
the certification by Defendant is moot.
Moreover, as Defendant concedes, the contact information that was already provided by Plaintiff
was accurate and resulted in Defendant successfully contacting the ex-wife by phone. Not only did
Defendant speak with her, but she confirmed an address in New Jersey where she receives mail. She
apparently indicated, however, that she does not want to voluntarily sit for a deposition and no longer
resides in New Jersey. If the latter is accurate, then she may very well be beyond the subpoena powers of
Defendant. But in any event, at this stage, Plaintiff has done all he is required to do under our Rules and
this Court’s Order to assist Defendant in locating the ex-wife. To force him to disclose the contact
information of his adult children, who are unaware of the sexual abuse he has suffered, in order to try to
depose them simply to obtain additional contact information for an individual who does not want to sit for
a deposition and is likely outside the state is burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff is unaware of any case
law supporting a Motion to Compel on these facts and Defendant provided none. The fact is that
Defendant has already made contact with the witness he wants to depose. To now attempt to force
Plaintiff’s children to provide additional information is simply overburdensome and, at this stage,
harassing.
In addition, Plaintiff provided the names and dates of birth of his four living children in his
Interrogatory responses on May 31, 2022. Their names are NJ, HJ, JA, and MD.1 At his deposition, as
Defense counsel knows, Plaintiff testified that his ex-wife Tracy is only the mother of three of these
children: NJ, HJ, and MD. Therefore, providing the contact information for JA is irrelevant and
unnecessary here because Plaintiff’s ex-wife Tracy is not his mother, and it is unlikely he will have
contact information for her. But forcing Plaintiff to provide contact information of NJ, HJ, and MD is
equally pointless, since Plaintiff has already reached out to them to locate contact information for their
mother and received no response. The burden here of forcing them to sit for a deposition to simply
answer questions about the location of their mother, whom Defendant has already spoken to, far
outweighs the minimal probative value to be gained. Furthermore, doing so would be extremely
prejudicial to Plaintiff since he has not disclosed his sexual abuse to his adult children. For these reasons,
Defendant’s Motion should be denied.
Second, Defendant now also seeks, for the first time, to compel Plaintiff to provide contact
information for his adult children so that Defendant can depose them with respect to the claims in this
matter. This request should be denied for the same reason that this Court denied Defendant’s Motion to
Compel the deposition of Plaintiff’s friend E.J.: they do not know that Plaintiff is a survivor of child
sexual abuse, they did not know their father prior to when the abuse occurred, and exposing them to this
is as unnecessary as it is traumatic for Plaintiff.
1
These names have been anonymized to protect confidentiality. Plaintiff can provide them to the Court upon
request.
2
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 3 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s children should be deposed because “Plaintiff's children will
have information relevant to Plaintiff's claims including damages related to his marriage and divorce, his
behaviors and mannerisms among his family, and the ability to confirm or rebut any of Plaintiff's claims
regarding the behaviors he claims are a result of his abuse allegations.” See Def. Cert. at ¶ 9. But
Defendant provides no logical basis for this claim, which makes sense because it is completely illogical.
There is no reason to believe that Plaintiff’s adult children will have information relevant to Plaintiff’s
damages because they are not aware that he was sexually abused, nor did they know him before he was
abused. To ask them to testify as to how the sexual abuse that their father suffered as a child, which they
are unaware of, has impacted him is not just absurd, it borders on cruel. Defendant’s request amounts to
forcing these adult children to learn for the first time during a deposition that their father was sexually
abused as a child for the sole purpose of then asking them to give some opinion as to how this has
impacted his life. Not only will this cause unnecessary trauma to the children, it will also greatly increase
and compound the trauma that Plaintiff has suffered for decades. More importantly, this extremely
damaging exercise would be totally pointless because it is completely unreasonable to think that they
could provide such an answer. For these reasons, the Motion should be denied.
In addition, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a
Protective Order preventing Defendant from deposing Plaintiff’s four adult children. As explained above,
there is no reason to take these depositions. They cannot possibly provide Defendant with any
information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with respect to
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages from the abuse because they do not know about the abuse. On the
contrary, doing so will only cause significant mental and emotional trauma to these children and to
Plaintiff. While Defendant’s Motion only seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide contact information for his
adult children, the Protective Order is necessary here because Defendant could locate them using the
information already provided in discovery and serve a subpoena. But since Plaintiff has already
demonstrated that there is no basis to depose the four adult children, this Court should enter the attached
Order denying Defendant’s Motion and issuing a Protective Order preventing these depositions in order to
avoid additional and unnecessary Motion practice here.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gabriel C. Magee
Gabriel C. Magee, Esq.
Daniella R. Price, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
GCM/cac
cc: Adam M. Carman, Esquire
Enclosure
3
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233547344
LEVY BALDANTE FINNEY & RUBENSTEIN, P.C.
BY: Gabriel C. Magee, Esquire
Daniella R. Price, Esquire
89 North Haddon Avenue, Suite D
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
(856) 424-8967
Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney I.D. 017052011/151252015
L. D. DOE NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff BERGEN COUNTY
v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L- 7525-21
BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION (d/b/a CIVIL ACTION
BERGENFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, and
d/b/a BERGENFIELD HIGH SCHOOL); ORDER
DEFENDANT DOE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF DONALD ANGELICA, DECEASED, 1-
5; DEFENDANT DOE 1-10; DEFENDANT DOE
INSTITUTION 1-10
Defendants
THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon the application of Defendant’s
Motion to Compel the certification ordered on November 16, 2023 and the names and contact
information for Plaintiff’s adult children, and Plaintiff’s Response in opposition thereto, as well as
Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Protective Order, and the Court having considered the papers submitted in
support and opposition thereto, the arguments of counsel, if any, and for good cause shown:
IT IS on this day of 2023, hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s
Motion is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for Protective Order is GRANTED
and that Defendant shall not contact or depose any of Plaintiff’s adult children.
1
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233547344
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of this Order shall be deemed effectuated upon all
parties upon its upload to eCourts. Pursuant to R. 1:5-1(a), movant shall serve a copy of this Order on
all parties not served electronically within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.
______________________________
HON. DAVID V. NASTA, J.S.C.
____ Opposed
____ Unopposed
2
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344
EXHIBIT “A”
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 2 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344
From: Gabriel Magee
To: Adam M. Carman; Daniella Price
Cc: Cheryl Klucaric
Subject: RE: L.D. DOE VS. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.; Our File No. 91490 ELH
Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 2:44:00 PM
Attachments: image006.png
Adam- please accept this email as certification that Plaintiff has provided all available contact information for Tracy DelDuca that is reasonably in his
direct or indirect control or custoday.
Please reconsider filing a motion to compel the deposition of his children. Plaintiff reached out to them and was not able to get any updated
information. Even it turns out that they have it, deposing the children to get another address for Tracy DelDuca is really unnecessary because she has
made it clear that she will not voluntarily appear for the deposition.
However, she confirmed to you that she receives mail at the Allendale address, and you have now sent her a subpoena to that address. For that reason,
if she fails to appear for that deposition, you have everything you need to file a motion to compel and/or for contempt. Doesn’t it make more sense to
pursue that motion?
Thanks,
____________________
Gabriel C. Magee, Esquire
Levy Baldante Finney & Rubenstein PC
1845 Walnut St, Ste 1300, Phila, PA 19103
89 N. Haddon Ave, Ste D, Haddonfield, NJ 08033
gmagee@LevyBaldante.com
267-857-1281
From: Adam M. Carman
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 9:41 AM
To: Gabriel Magee ; Daniella Price
Cc: Cheryl Klucaric
Subject: RE: L.D. DOE VS. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.; Our File No. 91490 ELH
I have not had contact with Tracy. My last email and letter to you on are still accurate. See attached previous email with letter enclosed.
In short, my process server tried multiple times at the address/phone previously indicated, as well as a prior address. The process server never saw
anyone home at the address we suspected, and the new owners of her prior address do not know her. Tracy called the process server back to advise she
has moved out of state and only uses her old address in Allendale for mailing purposes. She has never responded to my phone calls. In the event she may
have lied to my process server over the phone, and the information relayed from your client is correct, I am attempting to subpoena her again at that
same address, but I have little hope it will succeed given these facts. Now, I need the contact information for Plaintiff’s children. While unfortunate, I am
left with few options and now intend to depose Plaintiff’s children.
My understanding is that today is the last day to file a motion to be returnable on 12/15/2023, and I intend to file a motion for Plaintiff’s certification and
to compel the name, address, and phone for his children. I will wait until the afternoon to begin work on this if you can get me the information this
morning. Had the Court granted more time on the motion to extend, I would feel more comfortable waiting, but time is now short.
Adam M. Carman | Counsel
Methfessel & Werbel, P.C.
2025 Lincoln Highway | Suite 200 | Edison, NJ 08818
Direct: 732-650-6514
Fax: 732-248-2355 | www.methwerb.com
From: Gabriel Magee
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 9:04 AM
To: Adam M. Carman ; Daniella Price
Cc: Cheryl Klucaric
Subject: FW: L.D. DOE VS. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.; Our File No. 91490 ELH
CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN attachments .
Adam- were you able to get ahold of Tracy and is this dep actually going to happen on 12/18?
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 3 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344
____________________
Gabriel C. Magee, Esquire
Levy Baldante Finney & Rubenstein PC
1845 Walnut St, Ste 1300, Phila, PA 19103
89 N. Haddon Ave, Ste D, Haddonfield, NJ 08033
gmagee@LevyBaldante.com
267-857-1281
From: Dalton W. Herzog
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 3:13 PM
To: Cheryl Klucaric ; John Baldante ; Daniella Price ; Gabriel
Magee
Cc: 'calendar-nj@veritext.com'
Subject: L.D. DOE VS. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.; Our File No. 91490 ELH
Hello,
Please see attached on behalf of Adam M. Carman, Esq.
Thank you,
Dalton W. Herzog | Paralegal
Methfessel & Werbel, P.C.
2025 Lincoln Highway | Suite 200 | Edison, NJ 08818
Phone: 732-248-4200 x135
Fax: 732-248-2355 | www.methwerb.com
Preview
BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344 Philadelphia Office Mark S. Levy Rittenhouse Square John W. Baldante 1845 Walnut Street Lawrence D. Finney Suite1300 Martin G. Rubenstein Philadelphia, PA 19103 Kyle J. Keller (215) 735-1616 89 North Haddon Avenue (215) 545-2642 (Fax) Gabriel C. Magee ¥ Suite D Mark R. Cohen Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Stacy L. Hughes Attorney Email Daniella Price gmagee@levybaldante.com Danielle DerOhannesian Ϫ (800) 601-1616 Aron Minkoff Ϫ (856) 424-8967 (856) 795-7447 (Fax) Certified by the Supreme Court of New www.levybaldante.com Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney National Board of Trial Advocacy Certified Civil Trial Attorney Member of Pennsylvania & New Jersey Bar ¥ Member of Pennsylvania, New Jersey & Washington DC Bar Ϫ Member of Pennsylvania, New York & New Jersey Bar December 6, 2023 Via eCourts Honorable David V. Nasta, J.S.C. Bergen County Justice Center 10 Main Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 RE: L.D. Doe v. Bergenfield Board of Education, et al. Docket No.: BER-L-7525-21 File No.: 45985.851 Dear Judge Nasta: Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal Response in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel the certification ordered on November 16, 2023 and contact information for Plaintiff’s adult children, as well as for a Protective Order preventing Defendant from contacting or deposing Plaintiff’s adult children in this matter. Defendant asks this Court to compel contact information for Plaintiff’s children for two equally flawed reasons. First, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s children will have information related to the whereabouts of their mother. Second, Defendant now also claims that he is entitled to depose the adult children because they will have information related to Plaintiff’s claims. For the reasons detailed below, this Court should reject both arguments, deny Defendant’s Motion, and issue a Protective Order preventing Defendant from contacting or deposing Plaintiff’s adult children. First, Defendant asks this Court to compel Plaintiff to provide the contact information of his adult children so that Defendant may attempt to depose them in order to obtain contact information for their mother. This should be rejected because the burdensome and harassing nature of this request far outweighs any probative value. In addition, Defendant’s request is also redundant, and Defendant has a less burdensome means of obtaining this information. R. 4:10-2(g). 1 BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 2 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344 As an initial matter, Plaintiff has already repeatedly attempted to provide contact information for his ex-wife, with whom he no longer has a relationship. Defendant has repeatedly sought this information and Plaintiff has provided everything he could locate to comply with these requests. This includes contacting his adult children to try to locate additional contact information. Despite Defendant’s assertions to the contrary, Plaintiff has provided the certification required by this Court. On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed counsel for Defendant and confirmed that Plaintiff does not have any further direct or indirect information regarding the whereabouts of his ex-wife. See attached Ex. A, Pltf. Cert. Email to Defense. In order to make this certification, the Plaintiff reached out to his adult children and none of them have provided him with any additional information regarding the whereabouts of his ex- wife. Therefore, Plaintiff has complied with this Court’s November 16, 2023 Order and the request for the certification by Defendant is moot. Moreover, as Defendant concedes, the contact information that was already provided by Plaintiff was accurate and resulted in Defendant successfully contacting the ex-wife by phone. Not only did Defendant speak with her, but she confirmed an address in New Jersey where she receives mail. She apparently indicated, however, that she does not want to voluntarily sit for a deposition and no longer resides in New Jersey. If the latter is accurate, then she may very well be beyond the subpoena powers of Defendant. But in any event, at this stage, Plaintiff has done all he is required to do under our Rules and this Court’s Order to assist Defendant in locating the ex-wife. To force him to disclose the contact information of his adult children, who are unaware of the sexual abuse he has suffered, in order to try to depose them simply to obtain additional contact information for an individual who does not want to sit for a deposition and is likely outside the state is burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff is unaware of any case law supporting a Motion to Compel on these facts and Defendant provided none. The fact is that Defendant has already made contact with the witness he wants to depose. To now attempt to force Plaintiff’s children to provide additional information is simply overburdensome and, at this stage, harassing. In addition, Plaintiff provided the names and dates of birth of his four living children in his Interrogatory responses on May 31, 2022. Their names are NJ, HJ, JA, and MD.1 At his deposition, as Defense counsel knows, Plaintiff testified that his ex-wife Tracy is only the mother of three of these children: NJ, HJ, and MD. Therefore, providing the contact information for JA is irrelevant and unnecessary here because Plaintiff’s ex-wife Tracy is not his mother, and it is unlikely he will have contact information for her. But forcing Plaintiff to provide contact information of NJ, HJ, and MD is equally pointless, since Plaintiff has already reached out to them to locate contact information for their mother and received no response. The burden here of forcing them to sit for a deposition to simply answer questions about the location of their mother, whom Defendant has already spoken to, far outweighs the minimal probative value to be gained. Furthermore, doing so would be extremely prejudicial to Plaintiff since he has not disclosed his sexual abuse to his adult children. For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion should be denied. Second, Defendant now also seeks, for the first time, to compel Plaintiff to provide contact information for his adult children so that Defendant can depose them with respect to the claims in this matter. This request should be denied for the same reason that this Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Compel the deposition of Plaintiff’s friend E.J.: they do not know that Plaintiff is a survivor of child sexual abuse, they did not know their father prior to when the abuse occurred, and exposing them to this is as unnecessary as it is traumatic for Plaintiff. 1 These names have been anonymized to protect confidentiality. Plaintiff can provide them to the Court upon request. 2 BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 3 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s children should be deposed because “Plaintiff's children will have information relevant to Plaintiff's claims including damages related to his marriage and divorce, his behaviors and mannerisms among his family, and the ability to confirm or rebut any of Plaintiff's claims regarding the behaviors he claims are a result of his abuse allegations.” See Def. Cert. at ¶ 9. But Defendant provides no logical basis for this claim, which makes sense because it is completely illogical. There is no reason to believe that Plaintiff’s adult children will have information relevant to Plaintiff’s damages because they are not aware that he was sexually abused, nor did they know him before he was abused. To ask them to testify as to how the sexual abuse that their father suffered as a child, which they are unaware of, has impacted him is not just absurd, it borders on cruel. Defendant’s request amounts to forcing these adult children to learn for the first time during a deposition that their father was sexually abused as a child for the sole purpose of then asking them to give some opinion as to how this has impacted his life. Not only will this cause unnecessary trauma to the children, it will also greatly increase and compound the trauma that Plaintiff has suffered for decades. More importantly, this extremely damaging exercise would be totally pointless because it is completely unreasonable to think that they could provide such an answer. For these reasons, the Motion should be denied. In addition, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a Protective Order preventing Defendant from deposing Plaintiff’s four adult children. As explained above, there is no reason to take these depositions. They cannot possibly provide Defendant with any information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with respect to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages from the abuse because they do not know about the abuse. On the contrary, doing so will only cause significant mental and emotional trauma to these children and to Plaintiff. While Defendant’s Motion only seeks to compel Plaintiff to provide contact information for his adult children, the Protective Order is necessary here because Defendant could locate them using the information already provided in discovery and serve a subpoena. But since Plaintiff has already demonstrated that there is no basis to depose the four adult children, this Court should enter the attached Order denying Defendant’s Motion and issuing a Protective Order preventing these depositions in order to avoid additional and unnecessary Motion practice here. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gabriel C. Magee Gabriel C. Magee, Esq. Daniella R. Price, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff GCM/cac cc: Adam M. Carman, Esquire Enclosure 3 BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233547344 LEVY BALDANTE FINNEY & RUBENSTEIN, P.C. BY: Gabriel C. Magee, Esquire Daniella R. Price, Esquire 89 North Haddon Avenue, Suite D Haddonfield, NJ 08033 (856) 424-8967 Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney I.D. 017052011/151252015 L. D. DOE NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT LAW DIVISION Plaintiff BERGEN COUNTY v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L- 7525-21 BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION (d/b/a CIVIL ACTION BERGENFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, and d/b/a BERGENFIELD HIGH SCHOOL); ORDER DEFENDANT DOE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD ANGELICA, DECEASED, 1- 5; DEFENDANT DOE 1-10; DEFENDANT DOE INSTITUTION 1-10 Defendants THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon the application of Defendant’s Motion to Compel the certification ordered on November 16, 2023 and the names and contact information for Plaintiff’s adult children, and Plaintiff’s Response in opposition thereto, as well as Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Protective Order, and the Court having considered the papers submitted in support and opposition thereto, the arguments of counsel, if any, and for good cause shown: IT IS on this day of 2023, hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for Protective Order is GRANTED and that Defendant shall not contact or depose any of Plaintiff’s adult children. 1 BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20233547344 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of this Order shall be deemed effectuated upon all parties upon its upload to eCourts. Pursuant to R. 1:5-1(a), movant shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties not served electronically within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. ______________________________ HON. DAVID V. NASTA, J.S.C. ____ Opposed ____ Unopposed 2 BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344 EXHIBIT “A” BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 2 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344 From: Gabriel Magee To: Adam M. Carman; Daniella Price Cc: Cheryl Klucaric Subject: RE: L.D. DOE VS. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.; Our File No. 91490 ELH Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 2:44:00 PM Attachments: image006.png Adam- please accept this email as certification that Plaintiff has provided all available contact information for Tracy DelDuca that is reasonably in his direct or indirect control or custoday. Please reconsider filing a motion to compel the deposition of his children. Plaintiff reached out to them and was not able to get any updated information. Even it turns out that they have it, deposing the children to get another address for Tracy DelDuca is really unnecessary because she has made it clear that she will not voluntarily appear for the deposition. However, she confirmed to you that she receives mail at the Allendale address, and you have now sent her a subpoena to that address. For that reason, if she fails to appear for that deposition, you have everything you need to file a motion to compel and/or for contempt. Doesn’t it make more sense to pursue that motion? Thanks, ____________________ Gabriel C. Magee, Esquire Levy Baldante Finney & Rubenstein PC 1845 Walnut St, Ste 1300, Phila, PA 19103 89 N. Haddon Ave, Ste D, Haddonfield, NJ 08033 gmagee@LevyBaldante.com 267-857-1281 From: Adam M. Carman Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 9:41 AM To: Gabriel Magee ; Daniella Price Cc: Cheryl Klucaric Subject: RE: L.D. DOE VS. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.; Our File No. 91490 ELH I have not had contact with Tracy. My last email and letter to you on are still accurate. See attached previous email with letter enclosed. In short, my process server tried multiple times at the address/phone previously indicated, as well as a prior address. The process server never saw anyone home at the address we suspected, and the new owners of her prior address do not know her. Tracy called the process server back to advise she has moved out of state and only uses her old address in Allendale for mailing purposes. She has never responded to my phone calls. In the event she may have lied to my process server over the phone, and the information relayed from your client is correct, I am attempting to subpoena her again at that same address, but I have little hope it will succeed given these facts. Now, I need the contact information for Plaintiff’s children. While unfortunate, I am left with few options and now intend to depose Plaintiff’s children. My understanding is that today is the last day to file a motion to be returnable on 12/15/2023, and I intend to file a motion for Plaintiff’s certification and to compel the name, address, and phone for his children. I will wait until the afternoon to begin work on this if you can get me the information this morning. Had the Court granted more time on the motion to extend, I would feel more comfortable waiting, but time is now short. Adam M. Carman | Counsel Methfessel & Werbel, P.C. 2025 Lincoln Highway | Suite 200 | Edison, NJ 08818 Direct: 732-650-6514 Fax: 732-248-2355 | www.methwerb.com From: Gabriel Magee Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 9:04 AM To: Adam M. Carman ; Daniella Price Cc: Cheryl Klucaric Subject: FW: L.D. DOE VS. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.; Our File No. 91490 ELH CAUTION:This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN attachments . Adam- were you able to get ahold of Tracy and is this dep actually going to happen on 12/18? BER-L-007525-21 12/06/2023 9:55:33 AM Pg 3 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233547344 ____________________ Gabriel C. Magee, Esquire Levy Baldante Finney & Rubenstein PC 1845 Walnut St, Ste 1300, Phila, PA 19103 89 N. Haddon Ave, Ste D, Haddonfield, NJ 08033 gmagee@LevyBaldante.com 267-857-1281 From: Dalton W. Herzog Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 3:13 PM To: Cheryl Klucaric ; John Baldante ; Daniella Price ; Gabriel Magee Cc: 'calendar-nj@veritext.com' Subject: L.D. DOE VS. BERGENFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.; Our File No. 91490 ELH Hello, Please see attached on behalf of Adam M. Carman, Esq. Thank you, Dalton W. Herzog | Paralegal Methfessel & Werbel, P.C. 2025 Lincoln Highway | Suite 200 | Edison, NJ 08818 Phone: 732-248-4200 x135 Fax: 732-248-2355 | www.methwerb.com