As a general rule, New Jersey courts prefer the broadest possible discovery to allow lawsuits resolve on their own merits. While there are limitations built into the permissive rules on discovery for both parties and nonparties, only with a specific, factual showing of those limitations will a court step in to restrict discovery. In Alt. Glob. One, LLC v. Feingold, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 95 (App. Div. Oct. 30, 2024), the Appellate Division reinforced the rule that, without more, a nonparty’s claims of lack of relevancy or materiality cannot restrict a party’s right to broad pretrial discovery.
Feingold arises out of a Florida lawsuit filed by several corporate entity Plaintiffs against two individual Defendants for the conversion of certain investments in the businesses. In an effort to obtain information about the Defendants’ conduct, the corporate Plaintiffs served a subpoena on non-party New Jersey resident Daniel Amaniera, to depose him in New Jersey. Amaniera, a business rival of the Plaintiff entities, opposed the subpoena with a Motion to Quash, asserting that because he was a competitor of the Plaintiffs, the subpoena was an effort to bully and harass him and to obtain confidential business information. Amaniera’s Motion to Quash went on to say that his (Amaniera’s) testimony is irrelevant as he has no information related to the Defendants. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Amaniera’s Motion included several affidavits that linked the business dealings between Amaniera, the Defendants, and the Plaintiff entities. The trial court, referring to the broad discovery rules, denied the Motion to Quash and allowed the deposition to proceed.
On Amaniera’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court’s opinion emphasized the liberality of discovery rules to allow the broadest possible pretrial discovery to ensure the proper outcome of litigation depends on a case’s merits. The Court did note that a party’s broad right to discovery is not unlimited, pointing out that claims of “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden,” or demands seeking trade secrets or confidential information can outweigh the general presumption of discoverability. However, such claims of shelter from the discovery rules require that claimant show good cause, that the claim be specific and well-articulated, and that the claim not be based on broad allegations of harm. The Court found here, that all of Amaniera’s claims of harassment and privilege lacked any specificity. Moreover, they found that his claims of lacking of relevancy and materiality also carried no weight because he had no genuine interest in the outcome of the litigation. Ultimately, the burden of non-party Amaniera in sitting for his deposition did not outweigh the benefits to the Plaintiff business entities in their right to broad pre-trial discovery.
New Jersey practitioners should take note that the critical component of this matter was not the Court’s continued support of broad pretrial discovery, but the Court’s emphasis and implicit acknowledgment that when a party or non-party can provide specific facts to support their claims of harassment, embarrassment, confidentiality, or privilege, there is a line to be drawn; yet where that line stands requires a more specific and egregious showing than what Amaniera was able to provide herein.
