|
Newsletter -
Summer 2007
|
In the April 13, 2007 decision of Leitner v. Toms River Regional Schools, A-3460-05T1, the Appellate Division issued yet another criticism of the “Best Practices” concept. Yet, unlike its first criticism in Costanza v. Clemente, where its rebuke of “Best Practices” was generally contained in dicta, the Leitner Court focused its decision on the factors that the Courts must analyze in weighing whether justice will be better served by extending discovery or closing the discovery period and moving the case to trial. Thus, Leiter (unlike its predecessor Costanza) provides practitioners and the trial courts with a detailed framework of the factors to be analyzed when faced with discovery extensions under the “good cause” standard.
“Best Practices”, instituted in 2000, resulted in sweeping changes as to how law is practiced in the State of New Jersey. With the changes came extensive controversy and criticism which in many ways divided the Bar, the Bench and the Administrative Office of the Courts. Indeed, the Leitner Court aptly noted that “‘Best Practices’ was adopted to establish uniformity in the trial courts throughout the State, to establish firm and meaningful trial dates, to restore the public's faith in expeditious and efficient litigation and to control dilatory litigation tactics by providing the trial courts with tools to manage litigation.” Yet, the Appellate Division also recognized that “Best Practices was not adopted primarily as a means of reducing case backlog or increasing case clearance rates. While those goals are laudable, it is a misperception to think that Best Practices was principally adopted to give judges a seductive tool to be used chiefly to reduce backlog and increase clearance rates.” Instead, the appellate panel in Leitner opined that “Best Practices . . . is a vehicle that empowers individual trial judges to step in, where appropriate, and manage discovery in a case so that a realistic arbitration and trial date can be set.”
As such, the Court enumerated a detailed list of factors that the trial courts must consider when determining whether a litigant has met the “good cause” standard necessary to extend discovery. Those factors are:
(1) the movant's reasons for the requested extension of discovery; (2) the movant's diligence in earlier pursuing discovery; (3) the type and nature of the case, including any unique factual issues which may give rise to discovery problems; (4) any prejudice which would inure to the individual movant if an extension is denied; (5) whether granting the application would be consistent with the goals and aims of “Best Practices”; (6) the age of the case and whether an arbitration date or trial date has been established; (7) the type and extent of discovery that remains to be completed; (8) any prejudice which may inure to the non-moving party if an extension is granted; and (9) what motions have been heard and decided by the court to date.
After reviewing the aforementioned factors, the Leinter Court reversed the trial Court’s decision not to extend discovery, despite the fact that the case was more than 450 days old at the time of the motion to extend discovery. Id.
While no one factor on the list is determinative, the Appellate Division was clear in its message , that it is the duty of the Courts to ensure that cases are resolved on their merits, and the “Best Practices” rules were not meant to circumvent that duty in the name of clearing dockets and reducing backlog. As such, the framework provided by the Leitner Court should prove to be a valuable practice tool to ensure that the parties have the opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery in accordance with the needs of individual cases. Conversely, it is unlikely that this case will provide parties who engage in dilatory discovery practices any safe harbor from the deadlines imposed by the goals of the “Best Practices” guidelines.
Eric S. Schlesinger, Esq.
|
