Motion to Compel Production of Documents in New Jersey

What Is a Motion to Compel Production of Documents?

Basis for a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” (See Lindenmuth v. Holden (1996) 296 N.J. Super. 42, 51.)

Case Law Supporting a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

“The public policies underpinning our discovery rules include "expeditious handling of cases, avoiding stale evidence, and providing uniformity, predictability and security in the conduct of litigation.” (See Zaccardi v. Becker (1982) 88 N.J. 245, 252.)

To further those policies, “[t]he discovery rules were designed to eliminate, as far as possible, concealment and surprise in the trial of law suits to the end that judgments rest upon real merits of the causes and not upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel.” (See Dalton v. Crawley, No. A-4033-12T3, at *8-9 (App. Div. Apr. 8, 2014).)

Filing a Motion to Compel Electronically Stored Documents and Information

“[A] party may obtain discovery of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things otherwise discoverable under R[ule] 4:10-2(a) and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including an attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” (See Dalton v. Crawley, No. A-4033-12T3, at *10-11 (App. Div. Apr. 8, 2014).)

“In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.” (See Paladino v. Auletto Enters., Inc. (2019) 459 N.J. Super. 365, 371; Dalton v. Crawley, No. A-4033-12T3, at *10-11 (App. Div. Apr. 8, 2014).)

Supporting Arguments Regarding the Scope of Discovery

“We have implicitly determined that the broad scope of permissible discovery available pursuant to R. 4:10-2 (a) is subordinate to the need to protect from discovery documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial unless the party seeking discovery can satisfy a two-pronged test :

substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case, and
an inability, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.”

(See R.4:10-2; Medford v. Duggan (1999) 323 N.J. Super. 127, 133.)

Meeting the Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof for a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

“We review discovery orders for abuse of discretion.” (See Capital Health Sys., Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Servs., Inc. (2017) 230 N.J. 73, 79-80.) “[A]ppellate courts are not to intervene but instead will defer to a trial judge's discovery rulings absent an abuse of discretion or a judge's misunderstanding or misapplication of the law.” (See Ibid. [citing Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp. (2011) 207 N.J. 344, 371.)

“We start from the premise that discovery rules 'are to be construed liberally in favor of broad pretrial discovery.” (See id. at 80 [quoting Payton v. N.J. Tpk. Auth. (1997) 148 N.J. 524, 535.) “Our court system has long been committed to the view that essential justice is better achieved when there has been full disclosure so that the parties are conversant with all the available facts.” (See Scavone v. Oliver, No. A-0159-19, at *15-16 (App. Div. May 24, 2021).)

Meet and Confer Requirement for a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) requires the parties to meet and confer at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is held" to discuss the "nature and basis of their claims and defenses," consider the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case, and develop a proposed discovery plan. This plan is then presented to the court and establishes the timeline for the subsequent course of discovery.” (See Jatczyszyn v. Marcal Paper Mills (2011) 422 N.J. Super. 123, 133.)

Recent Precedent and Court Decisions for Motions to Compel Production of Documents

It is well settled that pursuant to R.4:10-2 (c) “provides that if discovery is ordered, the court must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation. Moreover, the rule is not limited to documents prepared by an attorney. Documents or tangible things prepared by a consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent also fall within the protection of the rule provided they are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” (See Medford v. Duggan (1999) 323 N.J. Super. 127, 133.)

It is also well settled that R. 4:10-2 (c) “does not make reference to ‘good cause’ as a basis for disclosure of witnesses' statements. Rather, in order to overcome the work-product privilege the moving party must establish: (1) that he has substantial need of the requested documents ; and (2) that he is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” (See Medford v. Duggan (1999) 323 N.J. Super. 127, 136-37.)

Documents for Motion to Compel Production of Documents in New Jersey

Sort By

Guido Maria Vs Future Generation Ea Rly Learn document preview

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY submitted by SEKAS, NICHOLAS, G of SEKAS LAW GR…

17 pages

ESX-L-006603-20 12/21/2023 4:29:53 PM Pg 1 of 3 Trans ID: LCV20233693937 Nicholas G. Sekas, Esq. Attorney No.: 004531987 SEKAS LAW GROUP, LLC 530 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 201 Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 (201) 816-1333 (201) 816-1522 Our File No.: 19-12347 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Maria Guido, Guardian Ad Prosequendum on behalf of Silas Perez MARIA GUIDO, as Guardian Ad SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Prosequendum on behalf of, SILAS PEREZ, a LAW DIVISION: ESSEX COUNTY minor, …