Preview
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C.
Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. (024262006)
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
(Tel.) (201) 614-6350
(Fax) (201) 730-6254
Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
EDWARD ABOYOUN BERGEN COUNTY- LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION
v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L-2221-22
NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS LLC,
SAM NASAB, JANE DOE 1-V (these names
being fictitious as their present identities are NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION FOR A
unknown); JOHN DOES 1-V (these names PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS,
being fictitious as their present identities are ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these
names being fictitious as their present identities
are unknown)
Defendants.
To: Jonathan F. Cohen, Esq.
James Plosia, Esq.
Plosia Cohen
Chester Woods
Complex 385 Route 34
Chester, New Jersey 07930
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edward Aboyoun
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the morning or
as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned will apply to the above-named Court
at 10 Main Street, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 for a protective order pursuant to Rule 4:10-3
an order imposing sanctions against Plaintiff, Edward Aboyoun, pursuant to Rule 1:4-8, and
1
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
awarding attorney's fees and costs to Defendants, Northeast Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab.
In support of the within application, the undersigned shall rely upon the Certification of Jacqueline
Voronov, Esq., together with the accompanying Memorandum of Law.
Pursuant to Rule 1:6-2(d), the undersigned requests oral argument in the event that opposition
is filed.
A proposed form of Order is submitted herewith.
BY: /s/ Jacqueline Voronov
Jacqueline Voronov, Esq.
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A
Paramus, NJ 07652
(Tel.) (201) 614-6350
(Fax) (201) 730-6254
Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE)
Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab
Dated: August 31, 2023
2
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C.
Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. (024262006)
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
(Tel.) (201) 614-6350
(Fax) (201) 730-6254
Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
EDWARD ABOYOUN BERGEN COUNTY- LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION
v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L-2221-22
NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS LLC,
SAM NASAB, JANE DOE 1-V (these names
being fictitious as their present identities are ORDER
unknown); JOHN DOES 1-V (these names
being fictitious as their present identities are
unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these
names being fictitious as their present identities
are unknown)
Defendants.
THIS MATTER having come before the Court by way of a Motion to Compel Discovery
filed by Plosia Cohen, attorneys on behalf of Plaintiff, Edward Aboyoun (“Plaintiff”), and a Cross-
Motion for a protective order pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:10-3 and for sanctions against
Plaintiff pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:4-8, and the Court having considered the papers,
and for good cause shown:
IT IS on this __________ day of _____________, 2023,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel be and hereby is DENIED; and it is further,
ORDERED that Defendants shall not be required to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s
Document Requests Nos. 3, 6, 10, 13, 19, 21, and 23; and it is further
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
ORDERED that Defendants shall not be required to provide further answers to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 11-16, 29, 36-41, 43, 45-47, 49, 58-60, 61, 66, 68-80, 86, 87-120,
122, 125, 137, 140, 149.
ORDERED that sanctions in the amount of _____________ be and hereby are assessed
against Plaintiff; and it is further,
ORDERED that such sanctions must be paid directly to Hall Booth Smith, P.C, attorneys
for Defendants;
ORDERED that Plaintiff must make payment in the amount of _____________ payable
to Hall Booth Smith, P.C. within ______ days of the entry of this Order.
____________________________________
HON. DAVID V. NASTA, J.S.C.
[ ] opposed
[ ] unopposed
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Jacqueline Voronov 15 E. Midland Ave.
Phone: 201.221.7014 Suite 3A
jvoronov@hallboothsmith.com Paramus, NJ 07652
Office: 201.614.6350
Fax: 201.730.6254
www.hallboothsmith.com
August 31, 2023
VIA E-COURTS
Honorable David. V. Nasta, J.S.C.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division
Bergen County Courthouse
10 Main Street, Third Floor
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
RE: Edward Aboyoun v Northeast Fitness Repairs, et al
Docket No. BER-L-002221-22
Dear Judge Nasta:
This office represents Defendants, Northeast Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab. There
is presently pending before this Honorable Court Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (the
“Motion”), which is returnable on September 8, 2023. Kindly accept the foregoing letter brief in
lieu of a more formal submission in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion and in support of Defendants’
Cross-Motion for a protective order pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:10-3 and sanctions
pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:4-8.
Defendants are mindful that the Court's time and resources are precious, and apologize to
for the inconvenience and burden associated with Plaintiff’s application and the Cross-Motion it
necessitated. As can be gleaned from the exhibits submitted herewith, the undersigned made every
effort to avoid motion practice; however, Plaintiff refused to voluntarily withdraw. In view of the
impropriety of Plaintiff’s discovery demands, not to mention the fact that Defendants have
provided responses, Plaintiff’s application is the very definition of frivolous. Not only should
Plaintiff’s Motion be denied outright, but Plaintiff should be required to reimburse Defendants for
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with having to defend against same. Particularly
where Defendants have already responded in painstaking detail to Plaintiff’s various deficiency
letters, not just once, but twice. Oral argument is hereby requested.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff's Motion should be denied simply because there is no factual or legal basis for the
relief Plaintiff has requested. The deficiencies Plaintiff claims are present in Defendants’ responses
to Plaintiff's interrogatories and document requests are non-existent. Although this case is a
garden-variety employment action, Plaintiff has served excessive, irrelevant, overbroad, and
unduly burdensome discovery requests that seek information far beyond the reasonable bounds of
his Complaint or any defenses or counterclaims asserted. Notwithstanding the patently
PARAMUS, NJ
ALABAMA | ARKANSAS | COLORADO | FLORIDA | GEORGIA | MONTANA | NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA | OKLAHOMA | SOUTH CAROLINA | TENNESSEE
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C.
August 31, 2023
Page 2
_____________________
objectionable nature of virtually all of Plaintiff’s demands, Defendants have provided substantive
responses as well as documents. For all of the claimed deficiencies, Defendants either properly
answered the demand or objected because Plaintiff's demand was improper.
Plaintiff wants Defendants to kowtow to his demands simply because he has made them.
But is not enough that Plaintiff sent a letter asking for more specific discovery. He has to come
forward and justify to this Honorable Court why he is entitled to the discovery sought. Plaintiff's
Motion fails even to discuss any of the specific discovery requests that are the subject of his Motion
(to be sure, Plaintiff did not even provide the Court with copies of his demands). Plaintiff's
demands are nothing more than a fishing expedition seeking to uncover the trial strategy of the
Defendants. Plainly, Plaintiff's goal is to harass Defendants and their counsel and it should not be
countenanced.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant, Northeast Fitness Repair, LLC, is in the business of providing preventative
maintenance and emergency services to fitness studios in the Northeast region. Plaintiff is a fitness
equipment repair technician who was retained by Northeast Fitness to provide repair and
maintenance services for Northeast Fitness’ clients. Plaintiff’s association with Northeast Fitness
lasted a mere ten (10) months (May 2021-March 2022) before Northeast Fitness’s owner,
Defendant Sam Nasab, severed the relationship after it was discovered that Plaintiff was poaching
Defendants’ clients and attempting to divert Defendants’ business relationships to his own
competitive venture.
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint on April 20, 2022. Plaintiff alleges,
generally, that Defendants misclassified him as an independent contractor and failed to pay him
overtime in violation of New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law (“WPL”), and discriminated against
him on the basis of his age in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).
Plaintiff also conceives that he was a whistleblower and that Defendants retaliated against him in
violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”).
Defendants interposed their Answer and Counterclaims through prior counsel, attorney
John Moldovan, Esq., on September 23, 2022.
On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff propounded upon Defendants an avalanche of
interrogatories, to put it mildly- 150 to be exact, not inclusive of subparts. (See Voronov Cert.,
Exhibit A).1 On this date, Plaintiff also served his Notice to Produce Documents. (See Voronov
Cert., Exhibit B). While the document requests were not as unduly numerous, they were no less
oppressive on a substantive level. For example, Plaintiff’s document Request No. 22 asks for a
staggering thirteen (13) years’ worth of records demonstrating vehicle ownership (i.e., bills of sale,
1
References to “Voronov Cert.” are hereby made to the Certification of Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. submitted
contemporaneously herewith.
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 3 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C.
August 31, 2023
Page 3
_____________________
registrations, insurance information) for all vehicles utilized by Defendant Nasab, not simply
vehicles registered to Northeast Fitness. Plaintiff’s document Request No. 23 asks for eight years’
worth of personal and business tax records. Document Request No. 24 asks Defendants to produce
call logs from all of Defendants’ telephone providers- both personal and business- reflecting all
incoming and outgoing calls for a period of nearly three (3) years. These are but a few examples
of the improper and troublesome discovery demands that Plaintiff now seeks to compel responses
to.
Defendants answered Plaintiff’s Interrogatories on March 10, 2023. (See Voronov Cert.
Exhibit C.) On or about March 17, 2023, Defendants provided Responses to Plaintiff’s Notice to
Produce Documents (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit D).2
Subsequently, Defendants retained new counsel, Hall Booth Smith. P.C. Defendants were
granted leave to file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which was filed on May 17, 2023.
By way of two (2) separate letters dated June 16, 2023, Plaintiff outlined various purported
deficiencies in Defendants’ Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Notice to Produce. (See
Certification of James L. Plosia, Jr., Exhibit A).
When a response had not yet been received, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel on July
19, 2023. By way of email correspondence dated July 25, 2023, the undersigned requested that
Plaintiff carry his motion one (1) cycle to allow Defendants time to respond to the June 16 letters.
Plaintiff consented to same. The undersigned advised Plaintiff’s counsel in that email exchange
that the “intention is to respond to your letters and hopefully resolve this amicably without
the need for motion practice.” (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit E).
On August 16, 2023, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s June 16, 2023 letters in a
comprehensive thirteen (13) page letter. (See Voronov Cert., Exhibit F). In that letter,
Defendants meticulously addressed each and every purported deficiency in Defendants’ discovery
responses. Where Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests were
insufficient, Defendants provided supplemental responses. Where discovery demands were
objectionable, which the vast majority were/are, Defendants maintained their objections and
provided further clarity and legal support for their position. Id. In conjunction with their responses,
Defendants also provided various documents, bates stamped DEF0001 through DEF0024. (See
Voronov Cert. Exhibit G). At the conclusion of the letter, Defendants once again expressed their
desire not to burden the court with unnecessary motion practice and requested the voluntarily
withdrawal of the Motion to Compel.
But Plaintiff did not withdraw the Motion. Instead, Plaintiff served another deficiency
letter on August 24, 2023. (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit H). On August 30, 2023, Defendants
2
While the Responses to Notice to Produce are undated, there is no dispute that the Responses were served by prior
counsel, as these Responses are the subject of Plaintiff’s June 16, 2023 deficiency letter.
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 4 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C.
August 31, 2023
Page 4
_____________________
responded to Plaintiff’s August 24 letter, once again in scrupulous detail. (See Voronov Cert.
Exhibit I). Despite the extant case law cited in Defendants’ letters and the detailed explanations
provided, Plaintiff remains unsatisfied.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
POINT I
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED AS IT IS PROCEDURALLY
DEFECTIVE
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Motion is defective because he has failed to comply with
the requirements of R. 1:6-2(c). This rule requires in pertinent part:
Every motion ... involving any aspect of pretrial discovery ... shall be listed for
disposition only if accompanied by a certification stating that the attorney for the
moving party has either (1) personally conferred orally or has made a specifically
described good faith attempt to confer orally with the attorney for the opposing party
in order to resolve the issues raised by the motion by agreement or consent order and
that such effort at resolution has been unsuccessful, or (2) advised the attorney for
the opposing party by letter, after the default has occurred, that continued non-
compliance with a discovery obligation will result in an appropriate motion being
made without further attempt to resolve the matter. (Emphasis added)
Plaintiff has not provided any certification consistent with the requirements of R. 1:6-2.
Plaintiff's letters informing Defendants of his intention to file a motion to compel discovery
responses unless Defendants supplement their responses forthwith (see Exhibit A to Plosia Cert.)
are likewise insufficient to comply with the spirit of the rule. Plaintiff has never once agreed to
confer or have a dialogue with Defendants regarding the scope of discovery or the adequacy of his
or Defendants responses. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with this mandatory prerequisite to
filing his discovery motion, the Motion should never have been listed for disposition. Based on
this reason alone, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be denied.
POINT II
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED AS MOOT
Setting aside the procedural deficiencies, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied for a more
fundamental reason- Defendants have already provided responses rendering Plaintiff’s application
moot. Where Defendants have already produced comprehensive interrogatory answers and
document responses, Plaintiff’s Motion is substantively groundless. The New Jersey Rules of
Court to do not provide a mechanism by which Plaintiff can force Defendants to provide different
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 5 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C.
August 31, 2023
Page 5
_____________________
answers to interrogatories more suited to Plaintiff’s liking where complete answers have already
been given.
POINT III
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY SHOULD BE
DENIED AND DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS ARE PALPABLY IMPROPER
The demands that are the subject of Plaintiff’s Motion are wholly improper for the myriad
reasons set forth in Defendants’ August 16 and August 30 letters. (See Voronov Cert. Exhibits
F and I). The responses and objections set forth in those letters are incorporated in their entirety
by reference herein and will not be restated here so as to not to burden the court with excessive
briefing.
Although New Jersey permits broad discovery by parties in civil litigation, that lenity ends
when discovery requests become “weapons of oppression.” Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. 274,
282 (Ch. Div. 1983); see also Catalpa Inv. Group v. Franklin Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 254
N.J. Super. 270, 273-74 (Law Div. 1991). Thus, our court rules afford trial courts expansive
authority with respect to pretrial discovery matters, including directing that discovery not be had;
limiting the scope of discovery to certain information; permitting discovery on specified terms and
conditions, and by prescribed methods, or in the presence of only designated individuals. R. 4:10–
3 allows a litigant or the person from whom discovery is sought “to obtain relief from the court to
“protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense...” R. 4:10–3. Similarly, R. 4:10–2(g) provides that the scope of discovery may be limited
by the court, if:
(1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive; (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery
in the action to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of
the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the
issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in
resolving the issues.
R. 4:10–2(g).
Here it is apparent that a protective order is required to prevent Plaintiff from continually
harassing Defendants with frivolous and unduly burdensome discovery requests and objections.
Plaintiff’s requests by and large are irrelevant to any of Plaintiff's claims as set forth in his
Complaint or are grossly overbroad. Plaintiff is not permitted to engage in a fishing expedition
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 6 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C.
August 31, 2023
Page 6
_____________________
through such abuse of motion practice simply because the responses he received did not further
Plaintiff’s misplaced theories of his case.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit interrogatories to 25 in number, including
discreet subparts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Although the N.J. Court Rules do not contain a similar
limit on the number of interrogatories, they do protect parties from “annoyance, expense,
embarrassment or oppression” in discovery. See R. 4:17-6. Plaintiff propounded a combined total
of 150 interrogatories (with numerous additional subparts) and 24 document requests. As noted,
although Defendants interposed many valid objections to Plaintiff's excessive discovery requests,
Defendants have responded at least in part to over half of them. Defendants should not be made
to expend additional resources to satisfy Plaintiff's conclusory claim that Defendant’s responses
are somehow not “adequate.”
Interestingly enough, Plaintiff’s application is not even predicated upon the “adequacy” of
Defendants’ responses. Rather, Plaintiff is simply asserting that because he served a demand for
more specific responses, Defendants must blindly comply. That is not how our discovery process
works. At all times, Plaintiff has burden of showing how the information he requests is relevant
to his claims. See R. 4:10-2(a) (“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 . . .
.”). Although latitude with respect to discovery may be wide, it is not unbridled. Plaintiff has done
absolutely nothing to establish that the information that he seeks is relevant in any way to his
claims, or that the burden to Defendants of continually digging deeper is outweighed by any
plausible benefit to Plaintiff. It is not Defendants’ burden to justify discovery responses that
Plaintiff has failed to discuss in his Motion, nor is it this Court's burden to sift through the countless
objectionable discovery requests, responses, and related correspondence to attempt to discern the
alleged shortcomings in the discovery responses. Discovery should not be a needless game of hide
the ball and Defendants are entitled to justification for each of Plaintiff's requests.
For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in Defendants’ August 16 and August 30 letters,
Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel be denied.
POINT IV
PLAINTIFF’S PURSUIT OF A MOTION IT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN TO
BE FUTILE JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION
SANCTIONS
Defendants also respectfully request that this Honorable Court order Plaintiff and/or its
attorneys to pay Defendants all reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in having to
reply to this Motion.
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 7 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C.
August 31, 2023
Page 7
_____________________
Frivolous litigation sanctions are governed by the dual provisions of Rule 1:4-8, which
permits sanctions against attorneys, and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 (the “frivolous litigation statute”),
which does the same for parties. Both provisions are motivated by the same purpose: “deterrence
of frivolous litigation and compensation for those having to suffer the consequences of frivolous
litigation behavior.” Toll Bros., Inc v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 190 N.J. 61, 65 (2007). Rule 1:4-8
requires any attorney who signs, files, or advocates any paper utilized in litigation to certify that:
1. the paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law
or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing
law or the establishment of new law;
3. the factual allegations have evidentiary support or, as to specifically identified
allegations, they are either likely to have evidentiary support or they will be withdrawn
or corrected if reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery indicates
sufficient evidentiary support; and
4. the denials of factual allegations are warranted on the evidence or, as to specifically
identified denials, they are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief or they
will be withdrawn or corrected if a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or
discovery indicates insufficient evidentiary support.
R. 1:4-8(a) (emphasis added).
For the purposes of a frivolous litigation motion, it has been held that the term “bad faith”
(which is explicit in the frivolous litigation statute and implicit in Rule 1:4-8) is defined by
reference to the legal definition of “malice” in tortious interference cases. Port-O-San Corp. v.
Teamsters Local Union No. 863 Welfare & Pension Funds, 363 N.J. Super. 431, 438 (App. Div.
2003). Accordingly, in this context, “bad faith” requires nothing more than a showing that the
harm (i.e., the frivolous claim) “was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse.”
Id. (quoting Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elees., 116 N.J. 739, 751 (1989)). As such, “[a]
claim will be deemed frivolous or groundless when no rational argument can be advanced in its
support, when it is not supported by any credible evidence, when a reasonable person could not
have expected its success, or when it is completely untenable.” Belfer v. Merling, 322 N.J. Super.
124, 144 (App. Div.), certif. den., 162 N.J. 196 (1999).
Here, Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel should be subject to sanctions based on the fact
that they knew, or should have known, that the Motion to Compel Discovery was baseless. If not
at the time of filing, at the very least after two (2) exhaustive letters were provided elaborating
Defendants’ responses and outlining Defendants’ objections, complete with case law. There is no
possible way that Plaintiff thought he would be entitled to call logs of each and every phone call
Defendants made or received dating back nearly two (2) years before Defendants even met
Plaintiff. Nor could Plaintiff have ever reasonably expected that Defendants would provide all of
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 8 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C.
August 31, 2023
Page 8
_____________________
the personnel files for each and every worker and independent contractor of Northeast Fitness over
a period of thirteen (13) years. Plaintiff’s demands are so far out of bounds, they can only be
described as frivolous.
Indeed, this type of case—in which one party has blindly clung to a position with no legal
support (and in the face of overwhelming legal authority)—represents a perfect example of the
conduct the rule and frivolous litigation statute were designed to discourage. If Plaintiff is
permitted to proceed unscathed, then any deterrence value the rule and statute may carry will be
brushed aside. Accordingly, because Plaintiff compelled defense counsel to expend significant
time and resources defending against a Motion that was utterly devoid of any legal foundation, an
award of sanctions is appropriate pursuant to Rule 1:4-8. Especially where defense counsel asked
Plaintiff’s counsel multiple times to consider withdrawal or schedule a call to discuss any
continued dispute in order to avoid unnecessary and costly motion practice.
CONCLUSION
Our jurisprudence is clear – parties' discovery rights are not unlimited. In addition to
claims of privilege and confidentially, our court rules recognize that “a party or ... the person from
whom discovery is sought” may “for good cause shown” seek “any order that justice requires to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense.” R. 4:10-3 (emphasis added). For all the reasons cited herein as well as Defendants’
August 16 and August 30 letters, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
be denied and Defendants’ cross-motion for sanctions be granted.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jacqueline Voronov
Jacqueline Voronov
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C.
Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. (024262006)
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
(Tel.) (201) 614-6350
(Fax) (201) 730-6254
Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
EDWARD ABOYOUN BERGEN COUNTY- LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION
v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L-2221-22
NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS LLC,
SAM NASAB, JANE DOE 1-V (these names
being fictitious as their present identities are CERTIFICATION OF JACQUELINE
unknown); JOHN DOES 1-V (these names VORONOV, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF
being fictitious as their present identities are OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these DISCOVERY AND CROSS-MOTION FOR
names being fictitious as their present identities PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS
are unknown)
Defendants.
I, Jacqueline Voronov, Esq., do hereby certify and say as follows:
1. I am a Partner with the law firm of Hall Booth Smith, P.C. and the primary attorney
responsible for handling this matter. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts asserted herein.
2. I submit this Certification in Support of Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Discovery and in support of Defendants’ Cross-Motion for a protective order
and sanctions.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s October 28,
2022 First Set of Interrogatories propounded upon Defendants.
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s October 28,
2022 First Notice to Produce Documents propounded upon Defendants.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Answers to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Responses
to Plaintiff’s First Notice to Produce Documents.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the July 25, 2023 email
exchange between Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. and Jonathan Cohen, Esq.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ August 16,
2023 correspondence.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of documents produced by
Defendants, bates stamped DEF0001 through DEF0024.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s August 24,
2023 correspondence.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ August 30,
2023 correspondence.
12. I hereby 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.
/s/ Jacqueline Voronov
JACQUELINE VORONOV, ESQ.
DATED: August 31, 2023
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C.
Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. (024262006)
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A
Paramus, NJ 07652
(Tel.) (201) 614-6350
(Fax) (201) 730-6254
Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
EDWARD ABOYOUN BERGEN COUNTY- LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION
v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L-2221-22
NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS LLC,
SAM NASAB, JANE DOE 1-V (these names
being fictitious as their present identities are
unknown); JOHN DOES 1-V (these names
being fictitious as their present identities are
unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these
names being fictitious as their present identities
are unknown)
Defendants.
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 31st day of August 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was filed electronically with the Clerk’s office using the eCourts system and served via
the Court’s eCourts system upon all parties accepting electronic service, including those listed
below. Parties may also access this filing through the Court’s eCourts system.
Jonathan F. Cohen, Esq.
James Plosia, Esq.
Plosia Cohen LLC
Chester Woods Complex
385 Route 24, Suite 3G
Chester, New Jersey 07930
Attorney for Plaintiff
/s/ Jacqueline Voronov
Jacqueline Voronov, Esq.
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Paramus, NJ 07652
(Tel.) (201) 614-6350
(Fax) (201) 730-6254
Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast
(NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam
Nasab
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
Exhibit A
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
PLOSIA COHEN LLC
Chester Woods Complex
385 Route 24, Suite 3G
Chester, New Jersey 07930
908-888-2547
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
EDWARD ABOYOUN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff, Docket. No.: BER-L-002221-22
v. Civil Action
NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
LLC, SAM NASAB, JANE DOE I-V; INTERROGATORIES TO
these names being fictitious as their DEFENDANT NORTHEAST (NE)
present identities are unknown; JOHN FITNESS REPAIRS LLC
DOE I-V (these names being fictitious as
their present identities are unknown);
XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these names
being fictitious as their present identities
are unknown)
Defendant(s).
TO: John Moldovan, Esq.
The Moldovan Law Firm LLC
115 River Road, Suite 104
Edgewater, NJ 07020
(866) 553-4251
JM@moldovanlegal.com
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 4:17-1, Plaintiff Edward Aboyoun
(“Plaintiff”) hereby demands that Defendant Northeast Fitness Repairs (“Defendant”) answer the
following Interrogatories in accordance with the New Jersey Rules of Court.
PLOSIA COHEN LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff Edward Aboyoun
By: /s/ Jonathan F. Cohen
Dated: October 28, 2022 Jonathan F. Cohen
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 3 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
I. INSTRUCTIONS
A. Each interrogatory shall be construed to include information within your
knowledge, possession or control, or that of your attorney, investigators, agents, or other
representatives of you and your attorney, as of the date of the answers given to these
interrogatories and the date of any supplemental information, knowledge, data documents or
communication responsive to these interrogatories which is subsequently generated, obtained or
discovered.
B. If any request for documents or responses is deemed to call for the production of
privileged or work product materials and such privilege or work product is asserted, provide the
following information:
(1) the reason for withholding the document or response;
(2) a statement of the basis for the claim or privilege, work product or other ground of
nondisclosure;
(3) a brief description of the document, including:
(a) the date of the document;
(b) the number of pages, attachments, and appendices;
(c) the names of its author, authors or preparers and an identification by
employment and title of each such person;
(d) the name of each person who was sent, shown or blind or carbon copies
the document, or has had access to or custody of the document together with an
identification of each such
person;
(e) the present custodian; and
(f) the subject matter of the document or response, and in the case of any
document answers if the answering party obtains further information between the
time the answers are served and the time of trial.
C. These interrogatories shall be deemed continuing so as to require supplemental
answers if the answering party obtains further information between the time the answers are
served and the time of trial.
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 4 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
DEFINITIONS
A. “Address” means the present or last known business address (or if the business
address is unknown, the residential address), including street name and number, the mailing
address if different from the street name and number, city, town or borough, state, zip code,
area code and telephone number.
B. “And” and “or” as used herein shall have the same meaning, that is, the
disjunctive meaning of “or”. The listing of terms or items separated by commas, semi-colons,
the word “and”, the word “or” the words “and/or” shall be deemed to require a response to
each and every term or item listed.
C. The use of the singular herein shall be deemed to encompass the use of the
plural, and vice versa.
D. “Client” means the private fitness studios or other businesses who have
retained the services of the Company and/or its employees and/or independent contractors for
the repair, installation and maintenance of fitness equipment.
E. “Complaint” means the Complaint (or Amended Complaint) filed by
plaintiff(s) in the above-captioned matter.
F. “Communication” means any meeting, conversation, discussion,
correspondence, document, message, conference or other occurrence or medium whereby
thoughts, opinions or data are transmitted orally, electronically, magnetically or in written form
between two or more persons.
G. “Describe”, “set forth” or “state” mean: to fully state the substance of the
event, circumstances, fact, communication, representation, conversation, conference, meeting,
transactions, occasion or other occurrence in question, setting forth all underlying facts rather
than the ultimate conclusion; to state the date, time, place and to identify all persons present
thereat or participating therein; to state that which each such person said and did; to state the
approximate duration of such occurrence; to state the method or means of communication
employed; to identify all persons having knowledge of such occurrence as well as the date and
means when and whereby such knowledge was first acquired by each such person.
H. “Document” means the original and all non-identical copies which are different
in any way from the original (whether by interlineation, receipt stamp, date stamp, notation,
indication of copies sent or received or otherwise), regardless of origin or location, of any
written, reported, filmed, magnetically stored, or graphic matter, or record of any type or
description, whether produced, reproduced or producible on paper, cards, tapes, film, electronic
facsimile, computer storage device, or any other media; including, but not Limited to,
memoranda, notes, minutes, records, photographs, computer programs, correspondence,
telegrams, telecopies, telefaxes, telexes, diaries, bookkeeping entries, specifications, object
code, flow charts, financial statements, charts, studies, reports, graphs, statements, handwritten
notes, agreements, contracts, books, pamphlets, periodicals, appointment calendars, records and
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 5 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
recordings of oral communications, work papers, and drafts, which are in the possession,
custody or control of you, or in the possession, custody, or control of your present or former
agents, representatives, employees, attorneys or investigators for your
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 6 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
attorneys, and all persons acting on your behalf, including documents at any time in the
possession, custody or control of such persons who are known by you to exist.
H. “Identify”, or “identity” mean, when used in reference to:
(1) A natural person, his or her: full name, present or last known address;
present or last known occupation, title, business affiliation and job description at the time
relevant to the particular interrogatory being answered;
(2) A company, corporation, association, partnership, joint venture or
legal entity other than a natural person: its full name; a description of the type of
organization or entity; the address of its principal place of business; the jurisdiction of its
corporation or organization; and the date of its incorporation or organization;
(3) A document: its description (for example, letter, memorandum, report,
tape, disk); its title, if any; its date; the number of pages thereof (if written); its subject; the
identity of its author, signatory or signatories, and any person who participated in its
preparation in other than a clerical capacity; the identity of its addressee or recipient; the
identity of each person to whom copies were sent and each person by whom copies were
received; its present location; and the identity of its present custodian. If any such document
was, but is no longer, in the possession of or subject to the control of plaintiff(s), state what
disposition was made of it and when such disposition occurred;
(4) An oral communication: the date and time when it occurred; the place
where it occurred; the complete substance of the communication; the identity of each person to
whom such communication was made, by whom such communication was made, and who was
present when such communication was made; if by telephone, the identity of each person who
made each telephone call, who participated in each telephone call, and the place where each
person participating in the telephone call was located, if known; and the identity of all
documents memorializing, referring to or relating in any way to the subject of the
communication.
I. “Person” means a natural person, firm, sole proprietorship, association,
partnership, joint venture, corporation or any other type of organization or entity, including, but
not limited to, governmental agencies, entities and instrumentalities.
J. “Subject incident” and “subject incident”' means and refers to the alleged
incident that occurred, which is the subject of this litigation.
K. “Defendants” means the defendants named in the above-captioned matter.
L. “Defendant” means “Northeast Fitness Repairs”
M. “Plaintiff” means the Plaintiff(s) named in the above-captioned matter.
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 7 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
N. “Treating professional” means any medical doctor, osteopath, chiropractor,
dentist, psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, nurse, aide, radiologist, optometrist,
podiatrist, psychological or physical therapist, or paramedic.
O. “Worker(s)” means employee(s), independent contractor(s), or any person(s)
who render services on behalf of Defendant Company.
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 8 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
1. State your name, address, telephone number and business affiliation, if any, of the
person(s) answering these interrogatories.
ANSWER:
2. Provide a full and complete description of the nature of the business of the Defendant
Company.
ANSWER:
3. Identify all individuals who have provided information or otherwise assisted in
answering these Interrogatories. As to each such individual, set forth the specific Interrogatories
concerning which he or she provided information or otherwise assisted in answering, the
information provided, and the source of said information.
ANSWER:
4. Set forth the name, home address, telephone numbers, and business affiliation, if any,
of each person who has knowledge of facts relevant to the subject matter of the within action, or
any denials or defenses that may be asserted in response thereto (includes anyone who
investigated any of the Plaintiff’s allegations, claims, or charges prior to the filing of this
Complaint) and please describe in full detail all of the facts, events, and circumstances about
which such person has knowledge, providing, wherever possible, dates, places, and times of
events and circumstances, and identify all persons spoken to during the investigation. In the
event Defendant expects to depose or call any of these persons as witnesses at trial, please
indicate that fact in the answer.
ANSWER:
5. Identify the name(s) of the individual(s) in charge of retaining electronic information,
the type of email program utilized by Defendant Company (e.g., Outlook), and the document
retention policy of Defendant Company.
ANSWER:
6. Have you obtained any statement from any individuals or entity not a party to this
action? If yes, state as to each:
(a) the name and address of the person who gave the statement and the date the
statement was obtained;
(b) the name and address of the person who took down and/or received the statement;
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 9 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530
(c) attach hereto true copies of all written statements, signed or unsigned, described
above. If the statements referred to above were oral, state as to each:
(1) the name and address of the person having custody of the recording;
(2) set forth in complete detail the substance of the statement;
(3) attach hereto true copies of all reports, writings or memoranda reflecting
the substance of any oral sta
Preview
BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C. Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. (024262006) 15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A Paramus, New Jersey 07652 (Tel.) (201) 614-6350 (Fax) (201) 730-6254 Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY EDWARD ABOYOUN BERGEN COUNTY- LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L-2221-22 NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS LLC, SAM NASAB, JANE DOE 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION FOR A unknown); JOHN DOES 1-V (these names PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS, being fictitious as their present identities are ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown) Defendants. To: Jonathan F. Cohen, Esq. James Plosia, Esq. Plosia Cohen Chester Woods Complex 385 Route 34 Chester, New Jersey 07930 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edward Aboyoun PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in the morning or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned will apply to the above-named Court at 10 Main Street, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 for a protective order pursuant to Rule 4:10-3 an order imposing sanctions against Plaintiff, Edward Aboyoun, pursuant to Rule 1:4-8, and 1 BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 awarding attorney's fees and costs to Defendants, Northeast Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab. In support of the within application, the undersigned shall rely upon the Certification of Jacqueline Voronov, Esq., together with the accompanying Memorandum of Law. Pursuant to Rule 1:6-2(d), the undersigned requests oral argument in the event that opposition is filed. A proposed form of Order is submitted herewith. BY: /s/ Jacqueline Voronov Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. 15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A Paramus, NJ 07652 (Tel.) (201) 614-6350 (Fax) (201) 730-6254 Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab Dated: August 31, 2023 2 BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C. Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. (024262006) 15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A Paramus, New Jersey 07652 (Tel.) (201) 614-6350 (Fax) (201) 730-6254 Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY EDWARD ABOYOUN BERGEN COUNTY- LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L-2221-22 NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS LLC, SAM NASAB, JANE DOE 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are ORDER unknown); JOHN DOES 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown) Defendants. THIS MATTER having come before the Court by way of a Motion to Compel Discovery filed by Plosia Cohen, attorneys on behalf of Plaintiff, Edward Aboyoun (“Plaintiff”), and a Cross- Motion for a protective order pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:10-3 and for sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:4-8, and the Court having considered the papers, and for good cause shown: IT IS on this __________ day of _____________, 2023, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel be and hereby is DENIED; and it is further, ORDERED that Defendants shall not be required to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Document Requests Nos. 3, 6, 10, 13, 19, 21, and 23; and it is further BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 ORDERED that Defendants shall not be required to provide further answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 11-16, 29, 36-41, 43, 45-47, 49, 58-60, 61, 66, 68-80, 86, 87-120, 122, 125, 137, 140, 149. ORDERED that sanctions in the amount of _____________ be and hereby are assessed against Plaintiff; and it is further, ORDERED that such sanctions must be paid directly to Hall Booth Smith, P.C, attorneys for Defendants; ORDERED that Plaintiff must make payment in the amount of _____________ payable to Hall Booth Smith, P.C. within ______ days of the entry of this Order. ____________________________________ HON. DAVID V. NASTA, J.S.C. [ ] opposed [ ] unopposed BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Jacqueline Voronov 15 E. Midland Ave. Phone: 201.221.7014 Suite 3A jvoronov@hallboothsmith.com Paramus, NJ 07652 Office: 201.614.6350 Fax: 201.730.6254 www.hallboothsmith.com August 31, 2023 VIA E-COURTS Honorable David. V. Nasta, J.S.C. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Bergen County Courthouse 10 Main Street, Third Floor Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 RE: Edward Aboyoun v Northeast Fitness Repairs, et al Docket No. BER-L-002221-22 Dear Judge Nasta: This office represents Defendants, Northeast Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab. There is presently pending before this Honorable Court Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (the “Motion”), which is returnable on September 8, 2023. Kindly accept the foregoing letter brief in lieu of a more formal submission in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion and in support of Defendants’ Cross-Motion for a protective order pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:10-3 and sanctions pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:4-8. Defendants are mindful that the Court's time and resources are precious, and apologize to for the inconvenience and burden associated with Plaintiff’s application and the Cross-Motion it necessitated. As can be gleaned from the exhibits submitted herewith, the undersigned made every effort to avoid motion practice; however, Plaintiff refused to voluntarily withdraw. In view of the impropriety of Plaintiff’s discovery demands, not to mention the fact that Defendants have provided responses, Plaintiff’s application is the very definition of frivolous. Not only should Plaintiff’s Motion be denied outright, but Plaintiff should be required to reimburse Defendants for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with having to defend against same. Particularly where Defendants have already responded in painstaking detail to Plaintiff’s various deficiency letters, not just once, but twice. Oral argument is hereby requested. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff's Motion should be denied simply because there is no factual or legal basis for the relief Plaintiff has requested. The deficiencies Plaintiff claims are present in Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories and document requests are non-existent. Although this case is a garden-variety employment action, Plaintiff has served excessive, irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome discovery requests that seek information far beyond the reasonable bounds of his Complaint or any defenses or counterclaims asserted. Notwithstanding the patently PARAMUS, NJ ALABAMA | ARKANSAS | COLORADO | FLORIDA | GEORGIA | MONTANA | NEW JERSEY | NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA | OKLAHOMA | SOUTH CAROLINA | TENNESSEE BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C. August 31, 2023 Page 2 _____________________ objectionable nature of virtually all of Plaintiff’s demands, Defendants have provided substantive responses as well as documents. For all of the claimed deficiencies, Defendants either properly answered the demand or objected because Plaintiff's demand was improper. Plaintiff wants Defendants to kowtow to his demands simply because he has made them. But is not enough that Plaintiff sent a letter asking for more specific discovery. He has to come forward and justify to this Honorable Court why he is entitled to the discovery sought. Plaintiff's Motion fails even to discuss any of the specific discovery requests that are the subject of his Motion (to be sure, Plaintiff did not even provide the Court with copies of his demands). Plaintiff's demands are nothing more than a fishing expedition seeking to uncover the trial strategy of the Defendants. Plainly, Plaintiff's goal is to harass Defendants and their counsel and it should not be countenanced. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant, Northeast Fitness Repair, LLC, is in the business of providing preventative maintenance and emergency services to fitness studios in the Northeast region. Plaintiff is a fitness equipment repair technician who was retained by Northeast Fitness to provide repair and maintenance services for Northeast Fitness’ clients. Plaintiff’s association with Northeast Fitness lasted a mere ten (10) months (May 2021-March 2022) before Northeast Fitness’s owner, Defendant Sam Nasab, severed the relationship after it was discovered that Plaintiff was poaching Defendants’ clients and attempting to divert Defendants’ business relationships to his own competitive venture. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint on April 20, 2022. Plaintiff alleges, generally, that Defendants misclassified him as an independent contractor and failed to pay him overtime in violation of New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law (“WPL”), and discriminated against him on the basis of his age in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). Plaintiff also conceives that he was a whistleblower and that Defendants retaliated against him in violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”). Defendants interposed their Answer and Counterclaims through prior counsel, attorney John Moldovan, Esq., on September 23, 2022. On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff propounded upon Defendants an avalanche of interrogatories, to put it mildly- 150 to be exact, not inclusive of subparts. (See Voronov Cert., Exhibit A).1 On this date, Plaintiff also served his Notice to Produce Documents. (See Voronov Cert., Exhibit B). While the document requests were not as unduly numerous, they were no less oppressive on a substantive level. For example, Plaintiff’s document Request No. 22 asks for a staggering thirteen (13) years’ worth of records demonstrating vehicle ownership (i.e., bills of sale, 1 References to “Voronov Cert.” are hereby made to the Certification of Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. submitted contemporaneously herewith. BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 3 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C. August 31, 2023 Page 3 _____________________ registrations, insurance information) for all vehicles utilized by Defendant Nasab, not simply vehicles registered to Northeast Fitness. Plaintiff’s document Request No. 23 asks for eight years’ worth of personal and business tax records. Document Request No. 24 asks Defendants to produce call logs from all of Defendants’ telephone providers- both personal and business- reflecting all incoming and outgoing calls for a period of nearly three (3) years. These are but a few examples of the improper and troublesome discovery demands that Plaintiff now seeks to compel responses to. Defendants answered Plaintiff’s Interrogatories on March 10, 2023. (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit C.) On or about March 17, 2023, Defendants provided Responses to Plaintiff’s Notice to Produce Documents (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit D).2 Subsequently, Defendants retained new counsel, Hall Booth Smith. P.C. Defendants were granted leave to file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which was filed on May 17, 2023. By way of two (2) separate letters dated June 16, 2023, Plaintiff outlined various purported deficiencies in Defendants’ Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Notice to Produce. (See Certification of James L. Plosia, Jr., Exhibit A). When a response had not yet been received, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel on July 19, 2023. By way of email correspondence dated July 25, 2023, the undersigned requested that Plaintiff carry his motion one (1) cycle to allow Defendants time to respond to the June 16 letters. Plaintiff consented to same. The undersigned advised Plaintiff’s counsel in that email exchange that the “intention is to respond to your letters and hopefully resolve this amicably without the need for motion practice.” (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit E). On August 16, 2023, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s June 16, 2023 letters in a comprehensive thirteen (13) page letter. (See Voronov Cert., Exhibit F). In that letter, Defendants meticulously addressed each and every purported deficiency in Defendants’ discovery responses. Where Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Document Requests were insufficient, Defendants provided supplemental responses. Where discovery demands were objectionable, which the vast majority were/are, Defendants maintained their objections and provided further clarity and legal support for their position. Id. In conjunction with their responses, Defendants also provided various documents, bates stamped DEF0001 through DEF0024. (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit G). At the conclusion of the letter, Defendants once again expressed their desire not to burden the court with unnecessary motion practice and requested the voluntarily withdrawal of the Motion to Compel. But Plaintiff did not withdraw the Motion. Instead, Plaintiff served another deficiency letter on August 24, 2023. (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit H). On August 30, 2023, Defendants 2 While the Responses to Notice to Produce are undated, there is no dispute that the Responses were served by prior counsel, as these Responses are the subject of Plaintiff’s June 16, 2023 deficiency letter. BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 4 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C. August 31, 2023 Page 4 _____________________ responded to Plaintiff’s August 24 letter, once again in scrupulous detail. (See Voronov Cert. Exhibit I). Despite the extant case law cited in Defendants’ letters and the detailed explanations provided, Plaintiff remains unsatisfied. LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED AS IT IS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Motion is defective because he has failed to comply with the requirements of R. 1:6-2(c). This rule requires in pertinent part: Every motion ... involving any aspect of pretrial discovery ... shall be listed for disposition only if accompanied by a certification stating that the attorney for the moving party has either (1) personally conferred orally or has made a specifically described good faith attempt to confer orally with the attorney for the opposing party in order to resolve the issues raised by the motion by agreement or consent order and that such effort at resolution has been unsuccessful, or (2) advised the attorney for the opposing party by letter, after the default has occurred, that continued non- compliance with a discovery obligation will result in an appropriate motion being made without further attempt to resolve the matter. (Emphasis added) Plaintiff has not provided any certification consistent with the requirements of R. 1:6-2. Plaintiff's letters informing Defendants of his intention to file a motion to compel discovery responses unless Defendants supplement their responses forthwith (see Exhibit A to Plosia Cert.) are likewise insufficient to comply with the spirit of the rule. Plaintiff has never once agreed to confer or have a dialogue with Defendants regarding the scope of discovery or the adequacy of his or Defendants responses. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with this mandatory prerequisite to filing his discovery motion, the Motion should never have been listed for disposition. Based on this reason alone, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be denied. POINT II PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED AS MOOT Setting aside the procedural deficiencies, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied for a more fundamental reason- Defendants have already provided responses rendering Plaintiff’s application moot. Where Defendants have already produced comprehensive interrogatory answers and document responses, Plaintiff’s Motion is substantively groundless. The New Jersey Rules of Court to do not provide a mechanism by which Plaintiff can force Defendants to provide different BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 5 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C. August 31, 2023 Page 5 _____________________ answers to interrogatories more suited to Plaintiff’s liking where complete answers have already been given. POINT III PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY SHOULD BE DENIED AND DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS ARE PALPABLY IMPROPER The demands that are the subject of Plaintiff’s Motion are wholly improper for the myriad reasons set forth in Defendants’ August 16 and August 30 letters. (See Voronov Cert. Exhibits F and I). The responses and objections set forth in those letters are incorporated in their entirety by reference herein and will not be restated here so as to not to burden the court with excessive briefing. Although New Jersey permits broad discovery by parties in civil litigation, that lenity ends when discovery requests become “weapons of oppression.” Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. 274, 282 (Ch. Div. 1983); see also Catalpa Inv. Group v. Franklin Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 254 N.J. Super. 270, 273-74 (Law Div. 1991). Thus, our court rules afford trial courts expansive authority with respect to pretrial discovery matters, including directing that discovery not be had; limiting the scope of discovery to certain information; permitting discovery on specified terms and conditions, and by prescribed methods, or in the presence of only designated individuals. R. 4:10– 3 allows a litigant or the person from whom discovery is sought “to obtain relief from the court to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense...” R. 4:10–3. Similarly, R. 4:10–2(g) provides that the scope of discovery may be limited by the court, if: (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. R. 4:10–2(g). Here it is apparent that a protective order is required to prevent Plaintiff from continually harassing Defendants with frivolous and unduly burdensome discovery requests and objections. Plaintiff’s requests by and large are irrelevant to any of Plaintiff's claims as set forth in his Complaint or are grossly overbroad. Plaintiff is not permitted to engage in a fishing expedition BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 6 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C. August 31, 2023 Page 6 _____________________ through such abuse of motion practice simply because the responses he received did not further Plaintiff’s misplaced theories of his case. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit interrogatories to 25 in number, including discreet subparts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Although the N.J. Court Rules do not contain a similar limit on the number of interrogatories, they do protect parties from “annoyance, expense, embarrassment or oppression” in discovery. See R. 4:17-6. Plaintiff propounded a combined total of 150 interrogatories (with numerous additional subparts) and 24 document requests. As noted, although Defendants interposed many valid objections to Plaintiff's excessive discovery requests, Defendants have responded at least in part to over half of them. Defendants should not be made to expend additional resources to satisfy Plaintiff's conclusory claim that Defendant’s responses are somehow not “adequate.” Interestingly enough, Plaintiff’s application is not even predicated upon the “adequacy” of Defendants’ responses. Rather, Plaintiff is simply asserting that because he served a demand for more specific responses, Defendants must blindly comply. That is not how our discovery process works. At all times, Plaintiff has burden of showing how the information he requests is relevant to his claims. See R. 4:10-2(a) (“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 . . . .”). Although latitude with respect to discovery may be wide, it is not unbridled. Plaintiff has done absolutely nothing to establish that the information that he seeks is relevant in any way to his claims, or that the burden to Defendants of continually digging deeper is outweighed by any plausible benefit to Plaintiff. It is not Defendants’ burden to justify discovery responses that Plaintiff has failed to discuss in his Motion, nor is it this Court's burden to sift through the countless objectionable discovery requests, responses, and related correspondence to attempt to discern the alleged shortcomings in the discovery responses. Discovery should not be a needless game of hide the ball and Defendants are entitled to justification for each of Plaintiff's requests. For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in Defendants’ August 16 and August 30 letters, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel be denied. POINT IV PLAINTIFF’S PURSUIT OF A MOTION IT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN TO BE FUTILE JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION SANCTIONS Defendants also respectfully request that this Honorable Court order Plaintiff and/or its attorneys to pay Defendants all reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in having to reply to this Motion. BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 7 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C. August 31, 2023 Page 7 _____________________ Frivolous litigation sanctions are governed by the dual provisions of Rule 1:4-8, which permits sanctions against attorneys, and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 (the “frivolous litigation statute”), which does the same for parties. Both provisions are motivated by the same purpose: “deterrence of frivolous litigation and compensation for those having to suffer the consequences of frivolous litigation behavior.” Toll Bros., Inc v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 190 N.J. 61, 65 (2007). Rule 1:4-8 requires any attorney who signs, files, or advocates any paper utilized in litigation to certify that: 1. the paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; 2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; 3. the factual allegations have evidentiary support or, as to specifically identified allegations, they are either likely to have evidentiary support or they will be withdrawn or corrected if reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery indicates sufficient evidentiary support; and 4. the denials of factual allegations are warranted on the evidence or, as to specifically identified denials, they are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief or they will be withdrawn or corrected if a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery indicates insufficient evidentiary support. R. 1:4-8(a) (emphasis added). For the purposes of a frivolous litigation motion, it has been held that the term “bad faith” (which is explicit in the frivolous litigation statute and implicit in Rule 1:4-8) is defined by reference to the legal definition of “malice” in tortious interference cases. Port-O-San Corp. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 863 Welfare & Pension Funds, 363 N.J. Super. 431, 438 (App. Div. 2003). Accordingly, in this context, “bad faith” requires nothing more than a showing that the harm (i.e., the frivolous claim) “was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse.” Id. (quoting Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elees., 116 N.J. 739, 751 (1989)). As such, “[a] claim will be deemed frivolous or groundless when no rational argument can be advanced in its support, when it is not supported by any credible evidence, when a reasonable person could not have expected its success, or when it is completely untenable.” Belfer v. Merling, 322 N.J. Super. 124, 144 (App. Div.), certif. den., 162 N.J. 196 (1999). Here, Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel should be subject to sanctions based on the fact that they knew, or should have known, that the Motion to Compel Discovery was baseless. If not at the time of filing, at the very least after two (2) exhaustive letters were provided elaborating Defendants’ responses and outlining Defendants’ objections, complete with case law. There is no possible way that Plaintiff thought he would be entitled to call logs of each and every phone call Defendants made or received dating back nearly two (2) years before Defendants even met Plaintiff. Nor could Plaintiff have ever reasonably expected that Defendants would provide all of BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 8 of 8 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Hon. David V. Nasta, J.S.C. August 31, 2023 Page 8 _____________________ the personnel files for each and every worker and independent contractor of Northeast Fitness over a period of thirteen (13) years. Plaintiff’s demands are so far out of bounds, they can only be described as frivolous. Indeed, this type of case—in which one party has blindly clung to a position with no legal support (and in the face of overwhelming legal authority)—represents a perfect example of the conduct the rule and frivolous litigation statute were designed to discourage. If Plaintiff is permitted to proceed unscathed, then any deterrence value the rule and statute may carry will be brushed aside. Accordingly, because Plaintiff compelled defense counsel to expend significant time and resources defending against a Motion that was utterly devoid of any legal foundation, an award of sanctions is appropriate pursuant to Rule 1:4-8. Especially where defense counsel asked Plaintiff’s counsel multiple times to consider withdrawal or schedule a call to discuss any continued dispute in order to avoid unnecessary and costly motion practice. CONCLUSION Our jurisprudence is clear – parties' discovery rights are not unlimited. In addition to claims of privilege and confidentially, our court rules recognize that “a party or ... the person from whom discovery is sought” may “for good cause shown” seek “any order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” R. 4:10-3 (emphasis added). For all the reasons cited herein as well as Defendants’ August 16 and August 30 letters, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel be denied and Defendants’ cross-motion for sanctions be granted. Respectfully, /s/ Jacqueline Voronov Jacqueline Voronov BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C. Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. (024262006) 15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A Paramus, New Jersey 07652 (Tel.) (201) 614-6350 (Fax) (201) 730-6254 Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY EDWARD ABOYOUN BERGEN COUNTY- LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L-2221-22 NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS LLC, SAM NASAB, JANE DOE 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are CERTIFICATION OF JACQUELINE unknown); JOHN DOES 1-V (these names VORONOV, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF being fictitious as their present identities are OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these DISCOVERY AND CROSS-MOTION FOR names being fictitious as their present identities PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SANCTIONS are unknown) Defendants. I, Jacqueline Voronov, Esq., do hereby certify and say as follows: 1. I am a Partner with the law firm of Hall Booth Smith, P.C. and the primary attorney responsible for handling this matter. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts asserted herein. 2. I submit this Certification in Support of Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and in support of Defendants’ Cross-Motion for a protective order and sanctions. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s October 28, 2022 First Set of Interrogatories propounded upon Defendants. BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s October 28, 2022 First Notice to Produce Documents propounded upon Defendants. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s First Notice to Produce Documents. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the July 25, 2023 email exchange between Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. and Jonathan Cohen, Esq. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ August 16, 2023 correspondence. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of documents produced by Defendants, bates stamped DEF0001 through DEF0024. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s August 24, 2023 correspondence. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ August 30, 2023 correspondence. 12. I hereby 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. /s/ Jacqueline Voronov JACQUELINE VORONOV, ESQ. DATED: August 31, 2023 BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C. Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. (024262006) 15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A Paramus, NJ 07652 (Tel.) (201) 614-6350 (Fax) (201) 730-6254 Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY EDWARD ABOYOUN BERGEN COUNTY- LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. DOCKET NO.: BER-L-2221-22 NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS LLC, SAM NASAB, JANE DOE 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown); JOHN DOES 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown) Defendants. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 31st day of August 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically with the Clerk’s office using the eCourts system and served via the Court’s eCourts system upon all parties accepting electronic service, including those listed below. Parties may also access this filing through the Court’s eCourts system. Jonathan F. Cohen, Esq. James Plosia, Esq. Plosia Cohen LLC Chester Woods Complex 385 Route 24, Suite 3G Chester, New Jersey 07930 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ Jacqueline Voronov Jacqueline Voronov, Esq. 15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3A BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Paramus, NJ 07652 (Tel.) (201) 614-6350 (Fax) (201) 730-6254 Attorneys for Defendants, Northeast (NE) Fitness Repairs, LLC and Sam Nasab BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 1 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 Exhibit A BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 2 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 PLOSIA COHEN LLC Chester Woods Complex 385 Route 24, Suite 3G Chester, New Jersey 07930 908-888-2547 Attorneys for Plaintiff STATE OF NEW JERSEY EDWARD ABOYOUN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff, Docket. No.: BER-L-002221-22 v. Civil Action NORTHEAST (NE) FITNESS REPAIRS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF LLC, SAM NASAB, JANE DOE I-V; INTERROGATORIES TO these names being fictitious as their DEFENDANT NORTHEAST (NE) present identities are unknown; JOHN FITNESS REPAIRS LLC DOE I-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown); XYZ CORPORATION I-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown) Defendant(s). TO: John Moldovan, Esq. The Moldovan Law Firm LLC 115 River Road, Suite 104 Edgewater, NJ 07020 (866) 553-4251 JM@moldovanlegal.com PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 4:17-1, Plaintiff Edward Aboyoun (“Plaintiff”) hereby demands that Defendant Northeast Fitness Repairs (“Defendant”) answer the following Interrogatories in accordance with the New Jersey Rules of Court. PLOSIA COHEN LLC Attorneys for Plaintiff Edward Aboyoun By: /s/ Jonathan F. Cohen Dated: October 28, 2022 Jonathan F. Cohen BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 3 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 I. INSTRUCTIONS A. Each interrogatory shall be construed to include information within your knowledge, possession or control, or that of your attorney, investigators, agents, or other representatives of you and your attorney, as of the date of the answers given to these interrogatories and the date of any supplemental information, knowledge, data documents or communication responsive to these interrogatories which is subsequently generated, obtained or discovered. B. If any request for documents or responses is deemed to call for the production of privileged or work product materials and such privilege or work product is asserted, provide the following information: (1) the reason for withholding the document or response; (2) a statement of the basis for the claim or privilege, work product or other ground of nondisclosure; (3) a brief description of the document, including: (a) the date of the document; (b) the number of pages, attachments, and appendices; (c) the names of its author, authors or preparers and an identification by employment and title of each such person; (d) the name of each person who was sent, shown or blind or carbon copies the document, or has had access to or custody of the document together with an identification of each such person; (e) the present custodian; and (f) the subject matter of the document or response, and in the case of any document answers if the answering party obtains further information between the time the answers are served and the time of trial. C. These interrogatories shall be deemed continuing so as to require supplemental answers if the answering party obtains further information between the time the answers are served and the time of trial. BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 4 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 DEFINITIONS A. “Address” means the present or last known business address (or if the business address is unknown, the residential address), including street name and number, the mailing address if different from the street name and number, city, town or borough, state, zip code, area code and telephone number. B. “And” and “or” as used herein shall have the same meaning, that is, the disjunctive meaning of “or”. The listing of terms or items separated by commas, semi-colons, the word “and”, the word “or” the words “and/or” shall be deemed to require a response to each and every term or item listed. C. The use of the singular herein shall be deemed to encompass the use of the plural, and vice versa. D. “Client” means the private fitness studios or other businesses who have retained the services of the Company and/or its employees and/or independent contractors for the repair, installation and maintenance of fitness equipment. E. “Complaint” means the Complaint (or Amended Complaint) filed by plaintiff(s) in the above-captioned matter. F. “Communication” means any meeting, conversation, discussion, correspondence, document, message, conference or other occurrence or medium whereby thoughts, opinions or data are transmitted orally, electronically, magnetically or in written form between two or more persons. G. “Describe”, “set forth” or “state” mean: to fully state the substance of the event, circumstances, fact, communication, representation, conversation, conference, meeting, transactions, occasion or other occurrence in question, setting forth all underlying facts rather than the ultimate conclusion; to state the date, time, place and to identify all persons present thereat or participating therein; to state that which each such person said and did; to state the approximate duration of such occurrence; to state the method or means of communication employed; to identify all persons having knowledge of such occurrence as well as the date and means when and whereby such knowledge was first acquired by each such person. H. “Document” means the original and all non-identical copies which are different in any way from the original (whether by interlineation, receipt stamp, date stamp, notation, indication of copies sent or received or otherwise), regardless of origin or location, of any written, reported, filmed, magnetically stored, or graphic matter, or record of any type or description, whether produced, reproduced or producible on paper, cards, tapes, film, electronic facsimile, computer storage device, or any other media; including, but not Limited to, memoranda, notes, minutes, records, photographs, computer programs, correspondence, telegrams, telecopies, telefaxes, telexes, diaries, bookkeeping entries, specifications, object code, flow charts, financial statements, charts, studies, reports, graphs, statements, handwritten notes, agreements, contracts, books, pamphlets, periodicals, appointment calendars, records and BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 5 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 recordings of oral communications, work papers, and drafts, which are in the possession, custody or control of you, or in the possession, custody, or control of your present or former agents, representatives, employees, attorneys or investigators for your BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 6 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 attorneys, and all persons acting on your behalf, including documents at any time in the possession, custody or control of such persons who are known by you to exist. H. “Identify”, or “identity” mean, when used in reference to: (1) A natural person, his or her: full name, present or last known address; present or last known occupation, title, business affiliation and job description at the time relevant to the particular interrogatory being answered; (2) A company, corporation, association, partnership, joint venture or legal entity other than a natural person: its full name; a description of the type of organization or entity; the address of its principal place of business; the jurisdiction of its corporation or organization; and the date of its incorporation or organization; (3) A document: its description (for example, letter, memorandum, report, tape, disk); its title, if any; its date; the number of pages thereof (if written); its subject; the identity of its author, signatory or signatories, and any person who participated in its preparation in other than a clerical capacity; the identity of its addressee or recipient; the identity of each person to whom copies were sent and each person by whom copies were received; its present location; and the identity of its present custodian. If any such document was, but is no longer, in the possession of or subject to the control of plaintiff(s), state what disposition was made of it and when such disposition occurred; (4) An oral communication: the date and time when it occurred; the place where it occurred; the complete substance of the communication; the identity of each person to whom such communication was made, by whom such communication was made, and who was present when such communication was made; if by telephone, the identity of each person who made each telephone call, who participated in each telephone call, and the place where each person participating in the telephone call was located, if known; and the identity of all documents memorializing, referring to or relating in any way to the subject of the communication. I. “Person” means a natural person, firm, sole proprietorship, association, partnership, joint venture, corporation or any other type of organization or entity, including, but not limited to, governmental agencies, entities and instrumentalities. J. “Subject incident” and “subject incident”' means and refers to the alleged incident that occurred, which is the subject of this litigation. K. “Defendants” means the defendants named in the above-captioned matter. L. “Defendant” means “Northeast Fitness Repairs” M. “Plaintiff” means the Plaintiff(s) named in the above-captioned matter. BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 7 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 N. “Treating professional” means any medical doctor, osteopath, chiropractor, dentist, psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, nurse, aide, radiologist, optometrist, podiatrist, psychological or physical therapist, or paramedic. O. “Worker(s)” means employee(s), independent contractor(s), or any person(s) who render services on behalf of Defendant Company. BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 8 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 1. State your name, address, telephone number and business affiliation, if any, of the person(s) answering these interrogatories. ANSWER: 2. Provide a full and complete description of the nature of the business of the Defendant Company. ANSWER: 3. Identify all individuals who have provided information or otherwise assisted in answering these Interrogatories. As to each such individual, set forth the specific Interrogatories concerning which he or she provided information or otherwise assisted in answering, the information provided, and the source of said information. ANSWER: 4. Set forth the name, home address, telephone numbers, and business affiliation, if any, of each person who has knowledge of facts relevant to the subject matter of the within action, or any denials or defenses that may be asserted in response thereto (includes anyone who investigated any of the Plaintiff’s allegations, claims, or charges prior to the filing of this Complaint) and please describe in full detail all of the facts, events, and circumstances about which such person has knowledge, providing, wherever possible, dates, places, and times of events and circumstances, and identify all persons spoken to during the investigation. In the event Defendant expects to depose or call any of these persons as witnesses at trial, please indicate that fact in the answer. ANSWER: 5. Identify the name(s) of the individual(s) in charge of retaining electronic information, the type of email program utilized by Defendant Company (e.g., Outlook), and the document retention policy of Defendant Company. ANSWER: 6. Have you obtained any statement from any individuals or entity not a party to this action? If yes, state as to each: (a) the name and address of the person who gave the statement and the date the statement was obtained; (b) the name and address of the person who took down and/or received the statement; BER-L -002221-22 08/31/2023 10:14:30 PM Pg 9 of 35 Trans ID: LCV20232501530 (c) attach hereto true copies of all written statements, signed or unsigned, described above. If the statements referred to above were oral, state as to each: (1) the name and address of the person having custody of the recording; (2) set forth in complete detail the substance of the statement; (3) attach hereto true copies of all reports, writings or memoranda reflecting the substance of any oral sta