Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in New Jersey

What Is a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories?

Understanding the Basis for a Motion to Compel Interrogatories

Interrogatories are authorized by Rule 3:33, which provides: “any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. The interrogatories shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 3:26-2. The latter Rule, in describing the permissible scope of examination, provides that "the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action including the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.” (See Evtush v. Hudson Bus Transp. Co., Inc. (1950) 10 N.J. Super. 45, 48-49.)

One of the purposes of interrogatories is “to require one's adversary to provide disclosure as to positions being taken in the litigation . . . .” (See Vitti v. Brown (2003) 359 N.J. Super. 40, 46-47.)

“The court may, on motion pursuant to R. 4:23-5, either compel the discovery or dismiss the pleading of a party who fails to submit to the examination, to timely move for a protective order, or to reschedule the date of and submit to the examination within a reasonable time following the originally scheduled date. A court order shall, however, be required for a reexamination by the adverse party's expert if the examined party does not consent thereto. This rule shall be applicable to all actions, whenever commenced, in which a physical or mental examination has not yet been conducted.” (See Wellmann v. Rd. Runner Sports, Inc. (2018) 458 N.J. Super. 373, 376.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“The discovery rules were designed to eliminate, as far as possible, concealment and surprise in the trial of lawsuits to the end that judgments therein be rested upon the real merits of the causes and not upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel.” (See Wymbs v. Twp. of Wayne (2000) 163 N.J. 523, 543 [quoting Evtush v. Hudson Bus Transp. Co., 7 N.J. 167, 173 (1951); Schweiger v. Standard Tile Supply, Co., No. A-1322-18T2, at *12 (App. Div. Nov. 6, 2019).)

“The plaintiff in such an action [subject to uniform interrogatories ] shall be deemed to have been served with uniform interrogatories simultaneously with service of defendant's answer to the complaint and shall serve answers to the interrogatories within [thirty] days after service of the answer to the complaint .” (See Schweiger v. Standard Tile Supply, Co., No. A-1322-18T2, at *11-12 (App. Div. Nov. 6, 2019).)

“On a motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought shall demonstrate that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court nevertheless may order discovery from such sources if the requesting party establishes good cause . . . . The court may specify conditions for the discovery.” (See Trenton Renewable Power, LLC v. Denali Water Sols., No. A-3060-20, at *10 (App. Div. Jan. 24, 2022).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

Generally, “parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. R. 4:10-2(a) (emphasis added). 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 . . . . R. 4:23-1. If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or submitted under R.4:14 or 4:15 . . . the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer or designation in accordance with the request.” (See Min Wu v. Jafco Foods, Inc., No. BER-L-7317-20, at *7 (N.J. Super. Feb. 25, 2022).)

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 State v. Cooper (1949) 2 N.J. 540, 556; Min Wu v. Jafco Foods, Inc., No. BER-L-7317-20, at *7 (N.J. Super. Feb. 25, 2022).)

“Rule 6:4-3(f) limits each party's discovery in Special Civil Part to interrogatories consisting of no more than five questions without parts. Such interrogatories shall be served and answered within thirty days. See R. 6:4-3 (a). Additional interrogatories may be served and enlargements of time to answer may be granted only by court order on timely notice of motion for good cause shown. R. 6:4-3(f) . (See Design Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Broad-Atlantic Assocs., LLC, No. A-3572-15T1, at *14 (App. Div. Oct. 10, 2017).)

“Our standard of review for dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for discovery misconduct is whether the trial court abused its discretion, a standard that cautions [us] not to interfere unless an injustice appears to have been done.” (See Abtrax Pharms. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc. (1995) 139 N.J. 499, 517.)

“A court abuses its discretion "when a decision is 'made without a rational explanation, inexplicably depart[s] from established policies, or rest[s] on an impermissible basis.” (See Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor (2002)171 N.J. 561, 571 [quoting Achacoso-Sanchez v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv. (1985) 779 F.2d 1260, 1265.)

“A trial court has inherent discretionary power to impose sanctions for failure to make discovery, subject only to the requirement that they be just and reasonable in the circumstances.” (See Calabrese v. Trenton State College (1978) 162 N.J. Super. 145, 151-52; Yenzer v. Liquidity Solutions, Inc., No. A-3043-14T3, at *12 (App. Div. Apr. 19, 2017).)

Meet and Confer

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1), “[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) requires the parties to meet and confer at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is held to discuss the "nature and basis of their claims and defenses, consider the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case, and develop a proposed discovery plan. This plan is then presented to the court and establishes the timeline for the subsequent course of discovery.” (See Jatczyszyn v. Marcal Paper Mills (2011) 422 N.J. Super. 123, 133.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that pursuant to Rule 4:17-3 “[t]he party serving the interrogatories . . . [to] furnish the answering party with the original thereof. Form A(2) Interrogatories are specifically tailored towards products liability actions. Rule 4:17-1 (b)(1) limits interrogatories to those prescribed by Form A of Appendix II, plus ten supplemental questions, without subparts, without seeking leave of court.” (See Schweiger v. Standard Tile Supply, Co., No. A-1322-18T2, at *11 (App. Div. Nov. 6, 2019).)

It is also well settled that “except as otherwise provided by Rule 6:4-3(b), interrogatories may be served pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rule 4:17 in all actions except forcible entry and detainer actions, summary landlord and tenant actions for the recovery of premises, and actions commenced or pending in the Small Claims Section. The [forty]-day and [sixty]-day periods prescribed by Rule 4:17-2 and Rule 4:17-4, respectively, are each reduced to [thirty] days in Special Civil Part actions.” (See Schweiger v. Standard Tile Supply, Co., No. A-1322-18T2, at *11 n.2 (App. Div. Nov. 6, 2019).)

Documents for Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in New Jersey

Sort By

Telebrands, Corp. Vs Tristar Products, In C. document preview

Notice of Motion for ESX-L-003058-24 submitted by HOFFMAN, BRIAN S, PRYOR …

223 pages

ESX-L-003058-24 05/03/2024 10:39:01 PM Pg 1 of 223 Trans ID: LCV20241141302 Brian Hoffman, Esq. 284782018 Pryor Cashman LLP 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036-6569 Telephone: (212) 421-4100 Facsimile: (212) 326-0806 bhoffman@pryorcashman.com Attorneys for Non-Party Telebrands Corp. : IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE : EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND …