New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

New Jersey Courts

The New Jersey court system has, for civil courts, three separate levels. The most basic and lowest level in the New Jersey court system is known as Small Claims. In Small Claims, you may sue a defendant or counterclaim against a plaintiff for up $3,000. Initially, in this type of court case, you must go to the county in which the defendant resides and file a claim through the court. You will fill out the appropriate forms and the court sends the notice to the defendant and gives you a court date. The defendant is not required to file an answer, but if they wish to do so, they might with a counterclaim. The court date occurs within 30 to 45 days from the filing of the lawsuit.

The next level for the New Jersey is known as the Special Civil Part Law Division. Claims in this court range up to $15,000 as a maximum. However, not counted within the cap is a claim for attorney’s fees and costs under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Presumptively, this would also apply to warranty claims as well. In this matter, as a defendant, you are required to file an answer as well as a counterclaim, so you are unable to sit back and do nothing and await a court date. In this action, discovery is also permitted under the court rules; however, not in depositions. If you want a deposition, you must make an application to the court to request a deposition of the adversary. Written discovery is permitted, such as interrogatories and demand for documents, and subpoenas are permitted to be issued. Offer of judgment may not be used in the Special Civil Part or the Law Division. Motion practice varies by county, but under the theory, you might file a motion for the defendant’s failure to provide discovery and if this is opposed, the court will list it for oral argument. However, please check with the specific county in which you have filed to check this procedure with the specific court.

The next level of court in the New Jersey court system is the Law Division. All claims might be filed in the Law Division, from $3,000 up to an unlimited amount. An answer must be filed, as well as any other pleading such as a counterclaim, affirmative defenses or third party claims. After a claim is filed, it will be provided an amount of time to do discovery, significantly longer than is permitted in the Special Civil Part. Discovery ranges from one year to one year-and-a-half for more complicated matters. Offer for judgments are permitted, and demand for documents, demand for interrogatories and subpoenas are permitted without court intervention. Again, the amount is unlimited and there is no minimum. Matters that may be filed in the Special Civil Part may be filed in the Law Division. Each individual courthouse has appropriate links through the New Jersey Courts Online, which I strongly recommend.

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Lawyer , Lemon Law Lawyer

New Jersey Law and Subpoenas

Defendants' subpoena directed at non-parties should be quashed in their entirety, as the documents sought contain nothing but confidential personal information and are not relevant to this litigation. New Jersey Courts have consistently recognized that although the scope of discovery is broad, it is not infinite. K.S. v. ABC Corp., 330 N.J. Super. 288, 291 (App. Div. 2000). Accordingly, a court may exercise its power to restrict depositions, especially those of third parties who are not involved in a litigation. In pertinent part, R. 4:10-3 of the New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure provides that this Court may quash, or decline to enforce a subpoena.and/or issue a protective Order, if the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matters, subjects a person to undue burden or requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential information.

Similarly, R. 1:9-2 states that in regard to a subpoena for the production of documents, "the court on motion ... may quash or modify the subpoena ... if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." As discussed in detail below, this Court should quash plaintiffs' subpoenas because they: (1) seek documents and information that are not relevant to the plaintiffs' claims or defenses in this matter; (2) are unduly burdensome and oppressive; and (3) seek documents and information that are confidential and privileged.
The defendants are simply trying to delve into the private life of the plaintiff. They are looking to delve into the plaintiff’s personal and confidential employment records with her current employer. With respect to R. 1:9-2, the defendants must make a substantial showing that the documents requested contain evidence relevant and material to the issue. See State v. Cooper, 2 N.J. 540, 556 (1949). The defendants have failed to show that any of the materials requested in the subpoenas they served are relevant and material to the issue as to whether plaintiff was harassed or was cheated on her wages.

B. Defendants' Subpoenas Should Be Quashed Because They Are Unreasonable, Oppressive and Are Not Narrowly Tailored.

In civil cases, a court, pursuant to R. 1:9-2, may quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum if it is unreasonable or oppressive, "or condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the person on whose behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the objects subpoenaed." The proposition set forth in R. 1:9-2 reflects a commitment on the part of New Jersey courts to protect non-parties from annoyance, burden or oppression in responding to subpoenaed requests to produce documents or testimony. Under those standards, defendants' subpoenas served on Superior Chevrolet are both unreasonable and oppressive.

In assessing whether to uphold a non-party subpoena, a court must decide whether the relevance and need for the testimony and documents is sufficient to outweigh the burden on, and intrusion to, a non-party. State v. Cooper, 2 N.J. at 556. In making that determination, courts can and should apply a high degree of scrutiny to subpoenas issued to non-parties. See e.g. Anker v. G.D. Searle & Co., 126 F.R.D. 515, 521 (M.D.N.C. 1989). If the specification is as broad and indefinite as to be oppressive and in excess of the party's necessities, the subpoena is not sustainable. See In re: Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 143 N.J. Super. 526, 537 (Law Div. 1976) (there must be "particularity of breadth so that a person complying with a subpoena in good faith is not harassed or oppressed to the point he experiences an unreasonable business detriment"). Furthermore, if the documents sought in the subpoena "are not relevant nor calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then any burden whatsoever imposed upon [a non-party] would be by definition "undue". Compaq Computer Corp. v. Packer Bell Electronics, Inc., 163 F.R.D. 329, 335-36 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Lawyer