BAR REPORT - Capitol Report
Supreme Court committee seeks to extend presumptive exclusion of medical reports from public access
October 21, 2019 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
The Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Public Access to Court Records recommended amendments to extend the presumptive exclusion of medical reports in all case types from public access. The reconsideration of Rule 1:38 was prompted by technological advances, "including the widespread implementation of eCourts."
"The ongoing implementation of eCourts has brought about the realization of the possibility foreseen in the Albin Report, which possibility likely will increase as electronic filing is made available to self-represented litigants," the committee said in its report. The committee referenced the 2007 Report of the Supreme Court Special Committee on Public Access to Court Records.
The committee noted that Rule 1:38-3(d)(3) excludes from public access medical reports filed in connection with certain family matters. Those reports include medical, psychiatric, psychological, and alcohol and drug dependency records, reports, and evaluations in matters related to child support, child custody, or parenting time determinations. The committee recognized that these reports may be filed in all case types and in correspondence that requests adjournments or extensions of time due to medical issues. As such, the committee proposed extending the presumptive exclusion of all medical and related records in all case types. This recommendation is consistent with comments the New Jersey State Bar Association submitted in connection with the original 2007 report.
Comments on these proposed amendments must be submitted in writing by Nov. 16, to: Glenn A. Grant, J.A.D., Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, Comments on Proposed Amendments to Rule 1:38– Exclusion of Medical and Related Records from Public Access, Hughes Justice Complex, P.O. Box 037, Trenton, NJ 08625-0037, or [email protected].
|Order Permits Certain Law Graduates to Appear in Court to Provide Legal Assistance
Law graduates who work at law school-affiliated nonprofit organizations that provide legal assistance for low- and low/moderate-income people to appear on certain matters may appear in court without supervision prior to passage of the New Jersey bar examination. The Supreme Court issued an amendment to Rule 1:21-3 that became effective on Oct. 9.
"The amendments to Rule 1:21-3(a) reinforce the Court's support of law school-associated nonprofit organizations that assist persons who do not qualify for pro bono legal help and who are unable to afford legal services at standard market rates," the Supreme Court said. "Allowing law graduates to appear in court without supervision will enable such organizations to employ more law graduates and to provide reduced-fee services to more clients."
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Don’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
- 2Federal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
- 3Unchartered Waters: The AI Phishing Wave Is Here
- 4AI Poisoning: A Novel Cyber Security Option
- 5The Expanding Universe of Attorney Cyber Liability
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250