Motion to Compel Discovery in Marciante Anthony Vs Emers Michael| Trellis.Law

On August 03, 2018 a Party Discovery was filed involving a dispute between Anthony Marciante, and Michael Emers, for Auto Negligence-Personal Injury (Non-Verbal Threshold) in the District Court of Cape May County.

Preview
CPM L 000306-18 04/01/2019 Pg 1 of 7 Trans ID: LCV2019574966

Kanter, Bernstein & Kardon, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff,
By: Brian P. Pincus, Esquire Anthony Marciante
1617 JFK Boulevard
Suite 1150
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 568-5885
ID# 003771982
_____________________________________________________________
ANTHONY MARCIANTE : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW
JERSEY
: LAW DIVISION
: CAPE MAY COUNTY
v. : NO. CPM –L-000306-18
MICHAEL EMERS :
:
:
: ORDER

This matter coming before the Court upon application of Brian P. Pincus,

Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, and it appearing from a reading and oral

argument of the Motion and opposition, and good cause appearing for the entry

of the within Order:

It is on this 1st day of April 2019, Ordered:

Plaintiff, Anthony Marciante’s motion to compel more specific answers to

interrogatories is granted.

It is hereby Ordered that the Defendant shall provide more specific

answers to interrogatories within twenty (20) days of this Order.

Is is further Ordered that a copy of this Order be served on the attorney(s)

for all parties within 7 days.

(x) Opposed
( ) Unopposed

1
CPM L 000306-18 04/01/2019 Pg 2 of 7 Trans ID: LCV2019574966

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
CAPE MAY COUNTY

CASE: Anthony Marciante v. Michael Emers

DOCKET NO.: CPM-L-306-18

NATURE OF
APPLICATION: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION
______________________________________________
BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF MOTION

The Complaint in this matter was filed on August 3, 2018. The

discovery end date is July 28, 2019. There are three hundred (300) days of

discovery. Trial and arbitration dates are not yet scheduled.

Plaintiff, Anthony Marciante, now moves to compel discovery.

This Court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the moving papers

and attached exhibits submitted by the parties with this motion.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Parties are permitted to obtain any discovery “regarding any non-

privileged matter that is relevant to the subject matter of a pending action or

is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In re

Liquidation of Integrity Ins. Co., 165 N.J. 75, 82 (2000). Discovery rules are

to be liberally construed. Payton v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 535 (1977).

2
CPM L 000306-18 04/01/2019 Pg 3 of 7 Trans ID: LCV2019574966

4:17-1(a) provides, in pertinent part, that any party may serve upon

any other party written interrogatories relating to any matters which may be

inquired into under R. 4:10-2. More specific or responsive answers to

interrogatory questions may be compelled pursuant to R. 4:23-1(b).

Failure to make discovery is governed by R. 4:23-5(c), which states in

pertinent part,

Motion to Compel. 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 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.

In the case of Kwiatkowski v. Gruber, 390 N.J. Super. 235, 236-37

(App. Div. 2007), the Appellate Court held, “Under R. 4:23-5(c), a party is

permitted to move for an order compelling discovery demanded pursuant to

R. 4:18 or R. 4:19 but not pursuant to R. 4:17.” Kwiatkowski further noted,

“When a party fails, as here, to comply with such an order [under R. 4:23-

5(c)], the aggrieved party may apply for dismissal or suppression pursuant to

subparagraph (a)(1).” Id. at 237.

MOVANT’S POSITION

Plaintiff, Anthony Marciante (“Plaintiff,”) requests this Court grant his

motion for more specific answers to interrogatories.

3
CPM L 000306-18 04/01/2019 Pg 4 of 7 Trans ID: LCV2019574966

Plaintiff submits that this is a claim filed by Plaintiff as a result of

injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The complaint was filed in this

matter on August 3, 2018. A responsive pleading was filed by way of an

Answer on October 1, 2018. The discovery requests subject of this motion of

the Plaintiff were propounded on October 29, 2018. See Exhibit “A”.

The time within which to provide Production of Documents and

Answers to Interrogatories has now expired. In response to a Motion to

compel responses, Defendant, Michael Emers (“Defendant,”) provided

answers to interrogatories certified by an insurance adjuster, attached the

police report which was not adopted in answers, and attached a declaration

sheet. Most answers of the insurance adjuster cited lack of personal

knowledge and were unresponsive to the Form C interrogatories propounded.

See Exhibit “B”. Plaintiff submits he takes the position that the

representative’s answers violate the spirit of the rules in that they have no

substantive value and do not replace answers based upon knowledge of the

Defendant.

Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to opposing counsel and left a message

on the voicemail for counsel advising that although he withdrew his motion

upon receipt of the answers, those answers were unacceptable and a further

motion would be filed if proper answers were not received. See Exhibit “C”.

Subsequent thereto a letter was received indicating that the rules were

followed, but the Defendant would be answering the original interrogatories

in the near future. See Exhibit “D”.

4
CPM L 000306-18 04/01/2019 Pg 5 of 7 Trans ID: LCV2019574966

Plaintiff also submits that depositions have not been taken because of

the lack of information received to date. The discovery deadline is July 28,

2019. Plaintiff’s counsel certifies that he has attempted to resolve the issues

as described above but has not reached an acceptable resolution related to

Defendant’s non-compliance. Plaintiff has been in complete compliance with

all outstanding requests for discovery.

Therefore, Plaintiff requests this Court grant his motion for more

specific answers to interrogatories.

OPPOSITION

Defendant, Michael Emers (“Defendant,”) submits the following in

opposition. Plaintiff files the within motion over some general objection to

the discovery responses provided by the claims representative based upon

information and belief. Defendant has advised that the responses are more

than typical and legal when based upon information and belief. Furthermore,

counsel for Defendant has offered to provide any specific information based

upon a specific demand for more specific information and/or response. No

such request was made, instead the within motion was filed the very same

day.

Counsel advised that they recently spoke with the named Defendant

and was hopeful to provide certified discovery responses. However, the

responses already provided and subject of this motion are legal and

appropriate. Therefore, Defendant requests this Court deny this motion.

5
CPM L 000306-18 04/01/2019 Pg 6 of 7 Trans ID: LCV2019574966

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff, Anthony Marciante’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel more

specific answers to interrogatories is granted.