OPINION ON THE DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO INTERROGATORIES; AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF
To begin, it would suffice if I introduced New Jersey law concerning interrogatories and production of documents. Beginning with interrogatories, the law provides that the Defendant should answer every question in the interrogatory. Also, the law provides that when asking questions about a business record, the Defendant should “afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or summaries”. The law also requires that the Defendant furnishes all information available to the party, and the party should designate which of such information is not within the answerer’s personal knowledge and as to that information shall state the details of the person and the location of the information.
For the production of documents, the law requires that when a request for production of documents has been sent, the recipient has an obligation to provide the requested documents. Further, the responding party has an obligation to update the submitted documents if there are any changes.
Concerning objections to the request to produce documents, the law provides that a party cannot issue a general objection to the said request. Notably, the law states in this regard that, “General objections to the request as a whole are not permitted and shall be disregarded by the court and adverse parties.” On the other hand, when Defendant objects to the interrogatories, he can either respond by stating, “The question is improper” or may file a motion at the court to strike out any question. Any party who claims a privilege or special protection against the production of the requested information will have to make that claim pursuant to the law. The law provides in that regard that, “… when a party withholds information otherwise discoverable… claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection”. It follows; when the Defendant objects to an interrogatory by claiming that the interrogatory would reveal trial preparation material, the Defendant should describe the said documents and their nature that warrant their protection.
Having looked at the law on discovery, I shall proceed to analyze whether the Defendant’s response meets the criterion provided under the law. First, the Defendant makes general objections to the request for documents. (Paragraphs, 1-7). According to the law, a general objection to a request for production of documents is invalid. Therefore, the general objections to the request for production of documents are null and void. Next, the Defendant largely references the request for interrogatories in his responses to the request for production of documents. It follows; I shall proceed to analyze the responses in the request for interrogatories.
It is worth noting that justice is more likely to be achieved when there has been full disclosure, and all parties are conversant with all available facts. Therefore, a defendant denying a discovery request must prove why they are withholding the requested information. The Defendant relies on the attorney work-privilege exception in response. (Paragraphs 9 and 10). However, it is worth mentioning that “discovery rules were designed to eliminate, as far as possible, concealment and surprise in the trial of law suits to the end that judgments rest upon real merits of the causes and not upon the skill and maneuvering of counsel”. The courts have previously held that for public policy purposes, the courts can pierce the attorney-client privilege so that a party accesses information that would be otherwise protected.
The Defendant objects that the interrogatories are broad, unduly burdensome, cumulative, and irrelevant. (Paragraph 17). The courts have previously held on this objection that “to say an interrogatory was overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant was not adequate to voice a successful objection to an interrogatory”. Further, “when objecting to a discovery request, an objecting party must state with specificity the grounds for the objection, and not the familiar litany that an interrogatory or document production request is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant”. The courts have also held in this vein that “broad-based, non-specific objections are almost impossible to assess on their merits, and fall woefully short of the burden that must be borne by a party making an objection to an interrogatory or document request”. It follows; a defendant cannot simply say that an interrogatory is broad. They must go ahead and give valid reasons and grounds for their objections.
In conclusion, courts have previously reversed discovery where defendants had an unmet discovery duty that had to be addressed. Rule 4:17-5(a) specifically authorizes the interrogating party (in this case- you) to file a motion to the court if you feel that your request for production of documents and your interrogatories are not sufficiently provided. In your case, some of your requested questions (the paragraphs mentioned above) are not answered conclusively. Therefore, you have a right to file a motion to compel the Defendant to provide the requested information.
REFERENCE
In re Liquidation of Integrity Ins. Co., 165 N.J. 75, 82 (2000).
Oliviero v. Porter Hayden Co., 241 N.J. Super. 381, 387 (App. Div. 1990).
United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff, 196 N.J. Super. 553, 563 (App. Div. 1984).
Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991-92 (3d Cir. 1982).
N.E. Technologies, Inc. v. Evolving Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 06-6061 (MLC), 2008 WL 4277668, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2008).
Harding v. Dana Transport, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 1084, 1102 (D.N.J. 1996),
Janell Brugaletta v. Calixto Garcia, D.O. (A-66-16) (079056) (2018).
N.J. Ct. R. 4:17-1(b)(4).
N.J. Ct. R. 4:18-1(a) and (b)(3).
N.J. Ct. R. 4:10-2(e)(1).
N.J. Ct. R. 4:17-4(a) and (d).
N.J. Ct. R. 4:17-5(a).
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.