Preview
ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660
Douglas Dooling, Jr., Esq.
N.J. Bar No. 24791-2017
WONG, WONG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant Gauhar Jamil
150 Broadway, Suite 1588
New York, NY 10038
(212) 566-8080
---------------------------------------------------------------x
AC OCEAN WALK, LLC d/b/a OCEAN CASINO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
RESORT, LAW DIVISION
ATLANTIC COUNTY
Plaintiff,
Docket No. ATL-L-1660-19
-v.-
CIVIL ACTION
GAUHAR JAMIL,
ORDER
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This matter having been brought before the Court by the above-named attorney for the
Defendant, by way of notice of motion, and the Court [( ) having/ ( X ) having not] held oral
arguments, and having read and considered the Motion and other documents, and for good cause
shown;
IT IS on this 14th day of February 2020:
ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(c), the Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Plaintiff’s
Answers to the Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories is DENIED.
A copy of this Order shall be served upon all parties within via eCourts.
[ ] opposed
[ X ] unopposed
____________________________________
Hon. Mary C. Siracusa, J.S.C.
1
ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 2 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON
OPINIONS
MARY C. SIRACUSA, J.S.C. 1201 Bacharach Boulevard
Atlantic City, NJ 08401-4527
(609) 402-0100 Ext. 47870
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
PURSUANT TO RULE 1:6-2(f)
CASE: AC Ocean Walk, LLC d/b/a Ocean Casino Resort v. Jamil
DOCKET #: ATL-L-1660-19
DATE: February 14, 2020
MOTION: Compel Discovery
MOVANT: Douglas Dooling Jr., Esq. – Defendant – Gauhar Jamil
PAPERS REVIEWED: Notice of Motion, Certification of Counsel, Counsel’s Brief,
Exhibits
Nature of Motion and Procedural Background
Defendant, Gauhar Jamil, brings this motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to
interrogatories. This is a tort action. Plaintiff, AC Ocean Walk, filed the Complaint on June 20,
2019. The discovery end date is July 5, 2020. Defendant filed this motion on January 14, 2020. No
party has filed opposition to the motion.
In support of the motion, counsel for Defendant certifies that on November 5, 2019,
Defendant sent his First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff’s counsel by way of email. Plaintiff’s
“The Judiciary of New Jersey is an equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer”
ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 3 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660
answers were then due on January 6, 2020. On January 7, 2020, Defendant sent a good-faith follow
up letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses to the Interrogatories. Plaintiff did not respond
to either request. Defendant now moves for an Order compelling Plaintiff to answer Defendant’s
First Set of Interrogatories within twenty-eight (28) days.
Discussion
Answers to the Interrogatories are due sixty (60) days after service, unless Uniform
Interrogatories were propounded in which event the answers are due within thirty (30) days. R.
4:17-1(b)(2). The time to answer the Interrogatories has not been extended as permitted by Rule
4:17-1(b)(2).
In New Jersey, it is “well-established principle that requests for discovery are to be liberally
construed and accorded the broadest possible latitude to ensure that the ultimate outcome of
litigation will depend on the merits in light of the available facts.” Piniero v. Div. of State Police,
404 N.J. Super. 194, 204 (App. Div. 2008). Relevancy is not only an issue of admissibility at trial,
but includes an inquiry into whether a discovery request is reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Pfenninger v. Hunterdon Cent. Reg'l High Sch., 167 N.J. 230, 237 (2001).
Rule 4:10-2(a)’s definition of relevancy “is congruent with relevancy pursuant to N.J.R.E. 401,
namely, a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of
the action.” R.L. v. Voytac, 402 N.J. Super. 392, 408 (App.Div.2008) (citing Payton v. New Jersey
Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 535 (1997)). Thus relevancy, among other things, may limit the scope
of the discovery process. See Piniero, supra, 404 N.J. Super. at 204.
3
ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660
Rule 4:23-5(c) provides:
Prior to moving to dismiss pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) of this rule, a party may
move for an order compelling discovery demanded pursuant to R. 4:14, R. 4:18-1
or R. 4:19. An order granting a motion to compel shall specify the date by which
compliance is required. If the delinquent party fails to comply by said date, the
aggrieved party may apply for dismissal or suppression pursuant to subparagraph
(a)(1) of this rule by promptly filing a motion to which the order to compel shall be
annexed, supported by a certification asserting the delinquent party's failure to
comply therewith. R. 4:23-5(c).
A party making such a discovery motion must make a good faith effort to acquire the discovery.
See R. 1:6-2(c).
Conspicuously absent from Rule 4:23-5(c) is any reference to Rule 4:17-1 or
interrogatories. In the opinion of this Court, the failure to answer interrogatories in a timely fashion
creates a right on the non-delinquent party to move to dismiss the complaint or move to suppress
the defendant’s answer without prejudice. See R. 4:23-5(a)(1). A failure to answer interrogatories,
however, does not allow a party to move to compel the answers to those interrogatories. See R.
4:23-5(c). Therefore, the Court should deny a motion to compel answers to interrogatories because
it is not authorized under the Rules.
Analysis
The Court declines to compel responses to interrogatories. As discussed above, while the
Court is authorized to compel certain types of discovery responses, answers to interrogatories is
not one of them. See R. 4:23-5(c). Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
An appropriate Order has been executed. A copy of the Order and a copy of this
Memorandum of Decision shall be served on all counsel of record via eCourts.
4
ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 5 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660
______________________________
Mary C. Siracusa, J.S.C.
Mary C. Siracusa, J.S.C.
5
Preview
ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660 Douglas Dooling, Jr., Esq. N.J. Bar No. 24791-2017 WONG, WONG & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Gauhar Jamil 150 Broadway, Suite 1588 New York, NY 10038 (212) 566-8080 ---------------------------------------------------------------x AC OCEAN WALK, LLC d/b/a OCEAN CASINO SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY RESORT, LAW DIVISION ATLANTIC COUNTY Plaintiff, Docket No. ATL-L-1660-19 -v.- CIVIL ACTION GAUHAR JAMIL, ORDER Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------- This matter having been brought before the Court by the above-named attorney for the Defendant, by way of notice of motion, and the Court [( ) having/ ( X ) having not] held oral arguments, and having read and considered the Motion and other documents, and for good cause shown; IT IS on this 14th day of February 2020: ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(c), the Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Plaintiff’s Answers to the Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories is DENIED. A copy of this Order shall be served upon all parties within via eCourts. [ ] opposed [ X ] unopposed ____________________________________ Hon. Mary C. Siracusa, J.S.C. 1 ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 2 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS MARY C. SIRACUSA, J.S.C. 1201 Bacharach Boulevard Atlantic City, NJ 08401-4527 (609) 402-0100 Ext. 47870 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION PURSUANT TO RULE 1:6-2(f) CASE: AC Ocean Walk, LLC d/b/a Ocean Casino Resort v. Jamil DOCKET #: ATL-L-1660-19 DATE: February 14, 2020 MOTION: Compel Discovery MOVANT: Douglas Dooling Jr., Esq. – Defendant – Gauhar Jamil PAPERS REVIEWED: Notice of Motion, Certification of Counsel, Counsel’s Brief, Exhibits Nature of Motion and Procedural Background Defendant, Gauhar Jamil, brings this motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories. This is a tort action. Plaintiff, AC Ocean Walk, filed the Complaint on June 20, 2019. The discovery end date is July 5, 2020. Defendant filed this motion on January 14, 2020. No party has filed opposition to the motion. In support of the motion, counsel for Defendant certifies that on November 5, 2019, Defendant sent his First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff’s counsel by way of email. Plaintiff’s “The Judiciary of New Jersey is an equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer” ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 3 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660 answers were then due on January 6, 2020. On January 7, 2020, Defendant sent a good-faith follow up letter to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting responses to the Interrogatories. Plaintiff did not respond to either request. Defendant now moves for an Order compelling Plaintiff to answer Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories within twenty-eight (28) days. Discussion Answers to the Interrogatories are due sixty (60) days after service, unless Uniform Interrogatories were propounded in which event the answers are due within thirty (30) days. R. 4:17-1(b)(2). The time to answer the Interrogatories has not been extended as permitted by Rule 4:17-1(b)(2). In New Jersey, it is “well-established principle that requests for discovery are to be liberally construed and accorded the broadest possible latitude to ensure that the ultimate outcome of litigation will depend on the merits in light of the available facts.” Piniero v. Div. of State Police, 404 N.J. Super. 194, 204 (App. Div. 2008). Relevancy is not only an issue of admissibility at trial, but includes an inquiry into whether a discovery request is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Pfenninger v. Hunterdon Cent. Reg'l High Sch., 167 N.J. 230, 237 (2001). Rule 4:10-2(a)’s definition of relevancy “is congruent with relevancy pursuant to N.J.R.E. 401, namely, a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.” R.L. v. Voytac, 402 N.J. Super. 392, 408 (App.Div.2008) (citing Payton v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 535 (1997)). Thus relevancy, among other things, may limit the scope of the discovery process. See Piniero, supra, 404 N.J. Super. at 204. 3 ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660 Rule 4:23-5(c) provides: Prior to moving to dismiss pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) of this rule, a party may move for an order compelling discovery demanded pursuant to R. 4:14, R. 4:18-1 or R. 4:19. An order granting a motion to compel shall specify the date by which compliance is required. If the delinquent party fails to comply by said date, the aggrieved party may apply for dismissal or suppression pursuant to subparagraph (a)(1) of this rule by promptly filing a motion to which the order to compel shall be annexed, supported by a certification asserting the delinquent party's failure to comply therewith. R. 4:23-5(c). A party making such a discovery motion must make a good faith effort to acquire the discovery. See R. 1:6-2(c). Conspicuously absent from Rule 4:23-5(c) is any reference to Rule 4:17-1 or interrogatories. In the opinion of this Court, the failure to answer interrogatories in a timely fashion creates a right on the non-delinquent party to move to dismiss the complaint or move to suppress the defendant’s answer without prejudice. See R. 4:23-5(a)(1). A failure to answer interrogatories, however, does not allow a party to move to compel the answers to those interrogatories. See R. 4:23-5(c). Therefore, the Court should deny a motion to compel answers to interrogatories because it is not authorized under the Rules. Analysis The Court declines to compel responses to interrogatories. As discussed above, while the Court is authorized to compel certain types of discovery responses, answers to interrogatories is not one of them. See R. 4:23-5(c). Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. An appropriate Order has been executed. A copy of the Order and a copy of this Memorandum of Decision shall be served on all counsel of record via eCourts. 4 ATL L 001660-19 02/14/2020 Pg 5 of 5 Trans ID: LCV2020319660 ______________________________ Mary C. Siracusa, J.S.C. Mary C. Siracusa, J.S.C. 5