Motion to Extend Discovery in New Jersey

What Is a Motion to Extend Discovery?

Circumstances for Extending Discovery

“Our system of justice favors the fair disposition of cases on their merits.” (See Viviano v. CBS, Inc. (1986) 101 N.J. 538, 547; Stanley v. Great Gorge Country Club (2002) 353 N.J. Super. 475, 486.) “On the other hand, the system also strives to make litigation expeditious and efficient. The Rules of Court are designed to achieve, among other goals, certainty in trial dates. As we have recognized, however, exceptional circumstances can arise, where trial dates or other litigation deadlines should be extended in the interests of justice and to avoid punishing litigants unfairly. The fair balance between fairness and trial-date certainty is reflected in Rule 4:24-1(c) governing extensions of discovery.” (See Orbea v. Butler, No. A-1177-17T2, at *10-11 (App. Div. Apr. 1, 2019).)

Requirements for Filing a Motion to Extend Discovery

Rule 4:24–1(c) “establishes guidelines for extending the discovery period in three circumstances. First, it allows for an initial sixty-day extension requiring only a stipulation that all parties consent, provided the extension is sought prior to the expiration of the discovery period. Second, it requires parties to file a motion to extend the time for discovery if the parties do not agree to consent to an extension or a longer extension is sought, provided the return date of the motion is set prior to the expiration of the discovery period. Finally, it states that [n]o extension of the discovery period may be permitted after an arbitration or trial date is fixed, unless exceptional circumstances are shown.” (See Jatczyszyn v. Marcal Paper Mills Inc. (2011) 422 N.J. Super. 123, 133-34.)

“To demonstrate exceptional circumstances, we generally require the attorney to show she or he has diligently pursued the information sought during the discovery period but had been frustrated from obtaining the discovery by circumstances largely beyond counsel's control.

Specifically, the moving party must show:

why discovery was incomplete and the diligence in pursuing discovery;
the additional discovery is essential;
an explanation for why an extension was not sought within the original discovery period; and
the circumstances were beyond the party's and counsel's control.”

(See Garden Howe Urban Renewal Assocs., LLC v. HACBM Architects Engineer Planners, LLC (2015) 439 N.J. Super. 446, 460; Hazlett v. Sandy Alexander, Inc., No. A-1016-17T1, at *13 (App. Div. Oct. 24, 2018).)

In accordance with Rule 4:24-1(c), “on good cause . . . shown, discovery extensions are granted where there is no scheduled trial or arbitration date and no showing of prejudice to the other party.” (See Leitner v. Toms River Reg'l Schools (2007) 392 N.J. Super. 80, 93; Ponden v. Ponden (2004) 374 N.J. Super. 1, 9-11, certif. denied, 183 N.J. 212, (2005); Wampler v. Dental Health Assocs., P.A., No. A-1796-13T4, at *8 (App. Div. Mar. 31, 2016).)

Extending Discovery Via Stipulation of the Parties

“The parties may consent to extend the time for discovery for an additional 60 days by stipulation filed with the court or by submission of a writing signed by one party and copied to all parties, representing that all parties have consented to the extension. A consensual extension of discovery must be sought prior to the expiration of the discovery period. If the parties do not agree or a longer extension is sought, a motion for relief shall be filed with the Civil Presiding Judge or designee in Track I, II, and III cases and with the designated managing judge in Track IV cases, and made returnable prior to the conclusion of the applicable discovery period.” (See Guirguis v. TD Bank, No. A-2231-12T1, at *9-10 (App. Div. Feb. 25, 2014).)

Submitting the Motion to Extend Discovery to the Court

“The movant shall append to such motion copies of all previous orders granting or denying an extension of discovery or a certification stating that there are none. On restoration of a pleading dismissed pursuant to R. 1:13-7 or R. 4:23-5(a)(1) or if good cause otherwise shown, the court shall enter an order extending discovery. Any proposed form of extension order shall describe the discovery to be completed, set forth proposed dates for completion, and state whether the adverse parties consent. Any order of extension of the discovery period may be permitted after an arbitration or trial date is fixed, unless exceptional circumstances are shown.” (See Guirguis v. TD Bank, No. A-2231-12T1, at *9-10 (App. Div. Feb. 25, 2014).)

“In Leitner v. Toms River Regional Schools, 392 N.J. Super. 80, 87-88 (App. Div. 2007), we listed non-exclusive factors that a trial court should take into consideration in determining whether to extend discovery deadlines:

the movant's reasons for the requested extension of discovery;
the movant's diligence in earlier pursuing discovery;
the type and nature of the case, including any unique factual issues which may give rise to discovery problems;
any prejudice which would inure to the individual movant if an extension is denied; 
whether granting the application would be consistent with the goals and aims of ‘Best Practices’;
the age of the case and whether an arbitration date or trial date has been established;
the type and extent of discovery that remains to be completed;
any prejudice which may inure to the non-moving party if an extension is granted; and 
what motions have been heard and decided by the court to date.

“After reviewing each of these factors, a determination can be made as to whether the trial court's discretion was properly exercised with respect to an individual application to extend discovery.”

(See Guirguis v. TD Bank, No. A-2231-12T1, at *11 (App. Div. Feb. 25, 2014).)

Standard of Review for Courts Reconsidering Discovery Orders for Motions to Extend

“We begin by acknowledging the well-established principle that decisions of trial courts on discovery matters are upheld unless they constitute an abuse of discretion.” (See Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp. (2011) 207 N.J. 344, 371.) “Accordingly, a reviewing court generally defer[s] to a trial court's disposition of discovery matters unless the court has abused its discretion or its determination is based on a mistaken understanding of applicable law.” [quoting Rivers v. LSC P'ship, 378 N.J. Super. 68, 80 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 296 (2005).]; Wampler v. Dental Health Assocs., P.A., No. A-1796-13T4, at *7 (App. Div. Mar. 31, 2016).)

“Appeals from discovery rulings have regularly depended on weighing these or similar factors, and appellate courts have repeatedly stated that each case must be decided on its own facts, subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” (See Bender v. Adelson (2006) 187 N.J. 411, 428 [finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's ruling barring expert testimony because of late discovery]; Leitner, supra, 392 N.J. Super. at 93 [reversing as a mistaken exercise of discretion the trial court's denial of an initial, routine discovery extension, despite plaintiffs' lack of diligence in pursuing discovery, where no trial or arbitration date had been set and where defendants could not show prejudice]; Guirguis v. TD Bank, No. A-2231-12T1, at *12 (App. Div. Feb. 25, 2014).)

Recent Court Rulings to Cite for Motions to Extend Discovery

It is well settled that Pursuant to Directive #01-19, “the parties should set forth in their Joint Discovery Plan any "issues about disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced" and "describe any agreements reached by the parties regarding same, including costs of discovery, production . . . .” (See Chelsea Square Condo. Ass'n v. Chelsea Commons, LLC, L-2406-18 (CBLP), at *5 (N.J. Super. May 13, 2021).)

It is also well settled that pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1(a). N.J.A.C. 1:1-10.1 “the Rules specifically regarding discovery are intended to "facilitate the disposition of cases" by "giving litigants access to facts which tend to support or undermine their position or that of their adversary." To that end, parties in a contested case "shall commence immediately to exchange information voluntarily," and "shall immediately serve discovery requests.” (See N.J.A.C. 1:1-10.4(a) to (b); In re Battle, No. A-0082-18, at *29-30 (App. Div. May 10, 2021).)

Documents for Motion to Extend Discovery in New Jersey

Sort By

Wissel, Iv Conrad Vs Kasen & Kasen, P.C., A New document preview

Complaint with Jury Demand for UNN-L-001727-24 submitted by MASELLI, PAUL …

66 pages

UNN-L-001727-24 05/07/2024 2:41:52 PM Pg1of66 Trans ID: LCV20241163268 MASELLI, MILLS & FORNAL, P.C. By: Paul Maselli, Esquire Attorney ID No. 036101986 400 Alexander Park Drive, Suite 101 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 (609) 452-8411 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CONRAD WISSEL, IV AND TINA LAW DIVISION WISSEL, …