Unpublished Opinions for the Week of October 3, 2016

07-7-1414 Falcetti v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (19 pp.) Plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor to produce documents. Plaintiff is a member of the International Longshoreman’s Association. A longshoreman cannot work on the waterfront in New York Harbor without being registered with the commission. Plaintiff asserted that plaintiff’s father had been convicted of organized crime activity, and the commission deliberately delayed plaintiff’s application, causing his employer to withdraw its sponsorship. Defendant appealed the trial court’s order requiring it to produce documents. The appellate panel vacated and remanded. First, the commission’s privilege log showed that almost all the withheld documents were related to plaintiff’s application and the ensuing investigation, including subpoenas and confidential reports. The log also noted that many of the documents were addressed to or from the commission attorney, that some concerned the lawsuit, and that 31 documents were sent after plaintiff threatened litigation. The commission’s three certifications explained why the documents were privileged and why disclosure would be harmful. Those explanations reflected privileges recognized under New Jersey law. As it did not appear that the court examined the documents in camera, the record did not support the court’s conclusion that the commission did not carry its prima facie burden to show privilege. Second, the certification by plaintiff’s counsel mentioned only four of the 70 documents on the commission’s privilege log. The current record provided no apparent basis for the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff demonstrated a compelling need for the entire investigatory file.

11-2-1415 Reliable Med. Billing LLC v. Borchardt, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Sumners, Jr., J.A.D.) (9 pp.) Plaintiff provided medical billing services for defendant-doctor. After their relationship soured, defendant transferred billing duties to a different collection company without notifying plaintiff. Plaintiff did not discontinue its collection efforts to collect monies for defendant until it received his written notice several months later that its services were terminated. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit for nonpayment for monies actually collected and for monies received by the other collection company based solely on plaintiff’s prior collection efforts. Defendant counterclaimed for lost collectibles because of plaintiff’s failures. At trial, plaintiff claimed entitlement to $16,830.26 for the balance owed from collecting prior to its dismissal. The court dismissed the complaint for failure of proof regarding the amount collected after plaintiff received the termination letter, without addressing the alleged unpaid compensation attributed solely to plaintiff’s collection efforts prior to engagement of the other collection company. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal and the denial of its motion for reconsideration. The panel remanded for the trial court to specify factual findings and conclusions of law regarding plaintiff’s claim for $16,830.26. The panel affirmed as to the balance of plaintiff’s damages, finding that the trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and that there was no merit to plaintiff’s argument that its lack of proofs was due to defendant’s wrongdoing.