Motion to Quash Discovery in New Jersey

What Is a Motion to Quash Discovery?

Background

“A nonparty may be compelled by subpoena to produce books, papers, documents, electronically stored information, or other objects designated therein.” (See R. 1:9-2.) “However, the scope of discovery is not infinite.” (See K.S. v. ABC Pro. Corp. (2000) 330 N.J.Super. 288, 291; see also Serrano v. Underground Utils. Corp. (2009) 407 N.J.Super. 253, 267.)

“To this end, the trial court may quash or modify the subpoena . . . if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive . . . .” (See R. 1:9-2; see also R. 4:10-3 [permitting the court to enter any order that justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.].) “Rule 4:10-3(a) and Rule 4:10-3(d), respectively, allow a court to determine that discovery not be had or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters.” (See Freedman v. Gottlieb, No. A-3382-19, at *4-5 (App. Div. Nov. 4, 2021).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Although it is well-settled law that discovery should be liberally granted, the scope of pretrial discovery is not limitless. Meandering expeditions which seek irrelevant, oppressive or burdensome discovery are not permitted.” (See Gensollen v. Pareja (2010) 416 N.J. Super. 585, 591; Elizabeth City v. 850 W. Grand Realty, LLC, No. 013359-2015, at *7 (Tax June 27, 2016).)

“The discovery rights provided by our court rules are not instruments with which to annoy, harass or burden a litigant or a litigant's experts.” (See Gensollen v. Pareja (2010) 416 N.J. Super. 585, 591; Elizabeth City v. 850 W. Grand Realty, LLC, No. 013359-2015, at *7 (Tax June 27, 2016).)

R. 1:9-2 permits the court “on motion made promptly [to] quash or modify the subpoena...if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive and...may condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the person in whose behalf the subpoena or notice is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the objects subpoenaed.” (See R. 1:9-2; see also In re: Grand Jury Proceedings of Guarino (1986) 104 N.J. 218; Elizabeth City v. 850 W. Grand Realty, LLC, No. 013359-2015, at *7 (Tax June 27, 2016).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A judge's decision to quash a subpoena is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (See D'Agostino v. Appliances Buy Phone, Inc., No. A-2005-13T1, at *46 (App. Div. Mar. 8, 2016).)

“Our court rules afford trial courts expansive authority in discovery matters, including directing that discovery not be had; limiting the scope of discovery to certain information; on specified terms and conditions; by prescribed methods; and in the presence of only designated individuals.” (See R. 4:10-3(a) and 3(d).)

“The Rule sets forth the notice provisions and limitations of a discovery subpoena. It is neither difficult to interpret nor complex in compliance. Its component parts require:

A subpoena commanding a person to produce evidence for discovery purposes may be issued only to a person whose attendance at a designated time and place for the taking of a deposition is simultaneously compelled;
The subpoena shall state that the subpoenaed evidence shall not be produced or released until the date specified for the taking of the deposition and;
If the deponent is notified that a motion to quash the subpoena has been filed, the deponent shall not produce or release the subpoenaed evidence until ordered to do so by the court or the release is consented to by all the parties to the action;
The subpoena shall be simultaneously served no less than 10 days prior to the date therein scheduled on the witness and on all parties, who shall have the right at the taking of the deposition to inspect and copy the subpoenaed evidence produced;
If evidence is produced by a subpoenaed witness who does not attend the taking of the deposition, the parties to whom the evidence is so furnished shall forthwith provide notice to all other parties of the receipt thereof and of its specific nature and contents, and shall make it available to all other parties for inspection and copying.”

(See R. 4:14-7(c); Crescenzo v. Crane (2002) 350 N.J. Super. 531, 538.)

“The determination of what discovery request is reasonable and relevant, and what constitutes an annoying, embarrassing, oppressive or unduly burdensome request, must be measured by the trial court on a case-by-case basis.”(See Berrie, supra, 188 N.J. Super. at 278; Elizabeth City v. 850 W. Grand Realty, LLC, No. 013359-2015, at *7 (Tax June 27, 2016).)

Meet and Confer

“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.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that pursuant to R.S. 2:42-2 “It is the general rule that the sole issue before the court on a motion to quash is whether or not the writ should have been issued, and it is not proper for the court to enter upon a consideration of the merits of the action, save in exceptional cases. The courts are enjoined to give the statute a liberal construction for the detection of fraud, the advancement of justice and the benefit of creditors." (See Singer v. Schapiro (1945) 133 N.J.L. 133, 135.)

It is also well settled that pursuant to N.J.R.E. 401, “information sought by the plaintiff must be relevant to the issues at hand and lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Relevant evidence is defined as evidence having a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.” (See Papadogonas v. Lee, No. A-0653-19T3, at *7 (App. Div. Jan. 8, 2021).)

Documents for Motion to Quash Discovery in New Jersey

Sort By

Blueberry Funding Ll C Vs Moshe Leor document preview

CROSS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY submitted by ROBERTS, MICHAEL of THE ROBERTS LA…

56 pages

OCN-L -001301-23 01/25/2024 11:44:00 PM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV2024223533 Michael Roberts Esq. Id No. 27832-2019 The Roberts Law Firm, LLC 33 Princeton Avenue, Brick, New Jersey 08724 (732) 813-7080 Attorney for Plaintiff Blueberry Funding LLC ween nnn nee een ee eee een nnn) Blueberry Funding, LLC, Superior Court of New Jersey …