A case concerning discovery disputes has landed before the New Jersey Appellate Division for the second time for what the court cited as “persistent non-compliance with discovery requests” by the defendants/third-party plaintiffs to provide responsive answers and documents to support its counterclaims.

In November 2018, a Middlesex County judge entered an order striking with prejudice the answer, counterclaims, and third-party claims of the defendants/third-party plaintiffs, ARF Realty Management and ARF Realty Investors, for failure to comply with discovery obligations. On a first appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order and directed the trial court to make specific findings of fact concerning whether there were grounds to dismiss ARF’s claims.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]