Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in New Jersey

What Is a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses?

Understanding the Basis for a Motion to Compel Discovery Reposnses

The New Jersey Rules of Court provide that “[a] party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery.” (See Min Wu v. Jafco Foods, Inc., No. BER-L-7317-20, at *7 (N.J. Super. Feb. 25, 2022).)

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” (See Korostynski v. Gaming Enforcement (1993) 266 N.J. Super. 549, 553.)

“Furthermore, there must be a substantial showing that [the discovery sought] contain[s] evidence relevant and material to the issue. If the specification is so broad and indefinite as to be oppressive and in excess of the defendant's necessities, then the Motion should be denied.” (See Min Wu v. Jafco Foods, Inc., No. BER-L-7317-20, at *7 (N.J. Super. Feb. 25, 2022).)

“Courts have held that rules of discovery are to be liberally construed and accorded the broadest possible latitude.” (See Blumberg v. Dornbusch, 139 N.J. Super. 433 , 437-438[, 354 A.2d 351] (App.Div. 197 6). “Such liberal construction allows the court to compel a party to produce all relevant, unprivileged information which may lead to the discovery of relevant evidence concerning the respective positions of both plaintiff and defendant.” (See Korostynski v. Gaming Enforcement (1993) 266 N.J. Super. 549, 553.)

Grounds for Filing a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“A party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, may apply for an order compelling discovery as follows:

If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under R. 4:14 or 4:15, or a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under R. 4:14–2(c) or 4:15–1, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer or designation in accordance with the request. When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before applying for an order. If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may make such protective order as it would have been empowered to make on a motion pursuant to R. 4:10–3.
Evasive or Incomplete Answer. For the purposes of this subdivision an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.
Award of Expenses of Motion. If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”

(See Segal v. Lynch (2012) 211 N.J. 230, 256-57.)

“[M]otions to compel discovery . . . must be made returnable prior to the expiration of the discovery period.” (See Carbis Sales v. Eisenberg (2007) 397 N.J. Super. 64, 81.)

Orders Compelling Sensitive Financial Information

“When a plaintiff requests a defendant's financial information our broad discovery practice is tempered by ‘a regard for the defendant's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of information about its financial status.’” (Ruiz v. Stack, No. A-1707-16T2, at *8 [App. Div. Mar. 15, 2019] quoting Herman v. Sunshine Chem. Specialties (1993) 133 N.J. 329, 343.) In reviewing such requests, ‘a trial court should balance the plaintiff's need for the information ... with an appreciation that a defendant's finances are private matters which are normally jealously guarded.’” (Id. at 344.)

Consequences of Non-Compliance with Orders to Compel Discovery
Rule 4:23-2(b)(3) permits a court to enter an “order striking out pleadings or parts thereof . . . with or without prejudice, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party who fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery. In its consideration of the ultimate sanction of striking a pleading, a judge must weigh the delinquent party's right to an adjudication on the merits with the other party's right to expect compliance with the discovery rules and orders.” (See Zaccardi v. Becker (1982) 88 N.J. 245, 256-58.)

“The sanction of dismissal should be used sparingly, in only those cases where the order for discovery goes to the very foundation of the cause of action, or where the refusal to comply is deliberate and contumacious.” (See Corp. Realty Servs., LLC v. Croghan, No. A-2772-15T1, at *10-11 (App. Div. July 10, 2018).)

Applying the Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof to Motions to Compel Discovery

“Broad discretion is given to the trial court to determine the scope of discovery.” (See Howard Savings Inst. v. Francis (1975) 133 N.J. Super. 54 , 59; Axelrod v. CBS Publications (1982) 185 N.J. Super. 359, 372.)

“While a trial court has wide discretion in deciding the appropriate sanction for a breach of discovery rules, the sanction must be just and reasonable.” (See Mauro v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1988) 225 N.J. Super. 196 , 206, 542 A.2d 16; Lindenmuth v. Holden (1996) 296 N.J. Super. 42, 52.)

“In the exercise of that discretion, the trial court can suspend the impositions of sanctions:

where there is an absence of a design to mislead;
where there is an absence of the element of surprise if the evidence is admitted; and
where there is an absence of prejudice which would result from the admission of the evidence.”

(See Brown v. Mortimer, supra, 100 N.J. Super. at 401-02, 242 A.2d 36; Lindenmuth v. Holden (1996) 296 N.J. Super. 42, 52.)

“While a judge has broad discretion in formulating sanctions under R. 4:23-2, any sanction imposed must be just and reasonable.” (See Conrad v. Robbi (2001) 341 N.J. Super. 424, 441.) “Imposition of sanctions for violation of discovery orders requires consideration of a number of factors, including whether the plaintiff acted willfully and whether the defendant suffered harm, and if so, to what degree.” (See Gonzales v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp. (2005) 185 N.J. 100, 115; Passaic Indus. Props., LLC v. McCusker, No. A-2539-18T2, at *18 (App. Div. Feb. 25, 2020).)

Meet and Confer Requirement for Motions to Compel Discovery Responses

“When a requesting party demands access to or copies of papers in an interrogatory, the responding party may decline by stating with specificity the reason for its noncompliance in response to the interrogatory. R. 4:17-5(b). When a responding party declines to turn over requested documents, the requesting party may file a motion to compel discovery , R. 4:23-5(c), after having made a good-faith attempt to meet and confer with the responding party or having notified the responding party that continued noncompliance with the discovery request will lead to a motion to compel, R. 1:6-2(c). In such circumstances, the court has the obligation to resolve the discovery dispute.” (See Brugaletta v. Garcia (2018) 234 N.J. 225, 249-50.)

Recent Precedent Discussing Motions to Compel Discovery Responses

It is well settled that “Rule 4:17-1(4) provides, [e]xcept as otherwise provided [e.g., where a claim of privilege is made or where the information is the subject of a protective order,] every question propounded by a uniform interrogatory must be answered unless the court has otherwise ordered.” (See Herrick v. Wilson, No. L-1913-10, at *3 (Law Div. Dec. 28, 2012).)

It is also well settled that “R. 4:79-5 provides: Interrogatories as to all issues in all matrimonial actions may be served by any party as of course pursuant to R. 4:17. All other discovery in matrimonial actions shall be permitted only by leave of court for good cause shown.” (See Lepis v. Lepis (1980) 83 N.J. 139, 159 n.10.)

Documents for Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in New Jersey

Sort By

Vargas Daniel Vs University Hospital document preview

OPPOSITION TO MOTION submitted by GREENBAUM O'CONNOR, JENNIFER, ROSE of SA…

51 pages

ESX-L-009015-21 01/11/2024 3:54:10 PM Pg1of50 Trans ID: LCV202498734 Jennifer R. O’Connor (State Bar ID 022971999) Caroline C. Braga (State Bar ID 334222022) SAIBER LLC 18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200 Florham Park, New Jersey 07932-2226 (973) 622-3333 joconnor@saiber.com Attorneys for Defendants University Hospital, Megan Gargiulo and Olivia Valentino-Davis DANIEL VARGAS, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY …