New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog
Sometimes you just need to laugh. This is a commercial that some dealerships use to sell cars. Have you ever met a car salesman like this? They can sell cars!!
This is good too!!
Subpoenas in New Jersey (part 3)
2 Defendants’ Subpoenas Are Unreasonable and Oppressive Because They Seek to Violate the Privacy Rights of Plaintiff
Plaintiff further objects to the subpoenas on the grounds that they are unreasonable and oppressive because they seek the production of documents which would violate the privacy rights of defendants. Defendants’ subpoenas for employment records must be rejected as unreasonable and oppressive.
Where information of a confidential nature is sought from a non-party, as is the case here with respect to personal records, the party seeking disclosure must make a strong showing of need. See e.g. Litton Industries, Inc., v. Chesapeake and Ohio Co., 129 F.R.D. 528, 530 (E.D. Wisc. 1990). A subpoena should not be used as a general effort by a party to conduct a “fishing expedition” into confidential material. See e.g. Dixon v. Rutgers, 110 N.J. 432 (1988) (protective orders appropriate to protect college peer review materials from excessive disclosure).
The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to be Watered Down and SIGNIFICANTLY Helps Car Dealerships
The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is to be Watered Down, significantly.
New Jersey has one of the strongest Consumer Fraud Acts in the United States.
There is pending legislation to change the Consumer Fraud Act and make it easier to avoid civil penalties for fraud.
Anti-Consumer Bill: New Jersey to Welcome Corrupt Businesses
Amy Handlin and John McKeon are sponsoring an anti-consumer bill that would change the business landscape in New Jersey.
A key provision of the new New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act would exempt out of state transactions. This means the following: if someone in New Jersey commits consumer fraud upon a non-resident (living in NY, PA or CT) there are no consequences.
“a. apply only to transactions that take place in the State”
Car Salesmen and Dealserships to be Protected with Proposed Changes in Consumer Fraud Act
Car Salesmen and Dealerships to be Protected with Proposed Changes in Consumer Fraud Act.
Amy Handlin and Jack McKeon have sponsored and introduced ANTI-CONSUMER legislation to reduce consumer rights and protect car dealerships.
The changes in the Consumer Fraud Act would exempt or limit liability against businesses that are already regulated, such as car dealerships. It would also limit liability for consumers who consummate out-of-state transactions. This arguably contradicts other legislation that has been introduced to increase liability for those committing consumer fraud.
Consumer Arbitration
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
What do you do when you make demand for arbitration and the business fails to comply?
It is not uncommon that if you have purchased a consumer good, it is likely that you have signed an arbitration agreement contained in the small print. The fact that the agreement is contained in small print or in the back of the document most likely will not result in a change in result that you cannot go to court but have to handle the matter through the arbitration process. These two major arbitration resources are the American Arbitration Association and JAMS. Well, what do you do when the business fails to respond or they are in violation of either American Arbitration Association or JAMS due to process protocols?
Car Salesmen Protected in Proposed New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Changes
CHANGES IN THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT TO PROTECT CAR SALESMAN
Amy Handlin is the co-sponsor on this bill to protect car salesman
John McKeon is the primary Sponsor on this bill to protect car salesmen.
Subpoenas in New Jersey (part 2)
In spite of its broad scope generally, discovery “is not unbridled and unlimited.” Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. 274, 282 (App. Div. 1983). Given the broad scope of defendants’ document demands upon these non-parties, the burden upon the non-parties in complying with defendants’ discovery demands, and the costs of enforcement of the subpoena, clearly outweigh any commensurate benefit, if any, to the plaintiff in this case.
1. Defendants’ Subpoenas Are Unreasonable And Oppressive Because They Seek Documents Equally Attainable From the Defendants.
The subpoenas served by defendants are unreasonable and oppressive because they request that a non-party produce documents more easily attainable from defendants, parties to the litigation, if any such information were relevant and not confidential. It is well-settled that a subpoena should not be used as a substitute for discovery more appropriately obtained through depositions and interrogatories. See Wassertein v. Swean & Co., 84 N.S. Super. 1, 6-8 (App. Div.) certif. denied, 43 N.J. 125 (1964). Furthermore, where the information subpoenaed is more readily attainable through discovery directed at a party, a shifting of the demand of production to a non-party is unreasonable and oppressive. See Harvey v. Nissan North America, Inc., 2005 WL 10501 (N.J. Super. Ch.) (granting Motion to Quash in part as “shifting of the burden to a non-party is impermissible and any duplicative requests need not be honored”). Moreover, defendants have offered no adequate cause to warrant shifting the burden of discovery to these non-parties to this matter. As such, defendants’ subpoenas should be quashed as unreasonable and oppressive.
New Jersey Courts
The New Jersey court system has, for civil courts, three separate levels. The most basic and lowest level in the New Jersey court system is known as Small Claims. In Small Claims, you may sue a defendant or counterclaim against a plaintiff for up $3,000. Initially, in this type of court case, you must go to the county in which the defendant resides and file a claim through the court. You will fill out the appropriate forms and the court sends the notice to the defendant and gives you a court date. The defendant is not required to file an answer, but if they wish to do so, they might with a counterclaim. The court date occurs within 30 to 45 days from the filing of the lawsuit.
The next level for the New Jersey is known as the Special Civil Part Law Division. Claims in this court range up to $15,000 as a maximum. However, not counted within the cap is a claim for attorney’s fees and costs under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Presumptively, this would also apply to warranty claims as well. In this matter, as a defendant, you are required to file an answer as well as a counterclaim, so you are unable to sit back and do nothing and await a court date. In this action, discovery is also permitted under the court rules; however, not in depositions. If you want a deposition, you must make an application to the court to request a deposition of the adversary. Written discovery is permitted, such as interrogatories and demand for documents, and subpoenas are permitted to be issued. Offer of judgment may not be used in the Special Civil Part or the Law Division. Motion practice varies by county, but under the theory, you might file a motion for the defendant’s failure to provide discovery and if this is opposed, the court will list it for oral argument. However, please check with the specific county in which you have filed to check this procedure with the specific court.
Subpoenas in New Jersey (part 1)
New Jersey Law and Subpoenas
Defendants’ subpoena directed at non-parties should be quashed in their entirety, as the documents sought contain nothing but confidential personal information and are not relevant to this litigation. New Jersey Courts have consistently recognized that although the scope of discovery is broad, it is not infinite. K.S. v. ABC Corp., 330 N.J. Super. 288, 291 (App. Div. 2000). Accordingly, a court may exercise its power to restrict depositions, especially those of third parties who are not involved in a litigation. In pertinent part, R. 4:10-3 of the New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure provides that this Court may quash, or decline to enforce a subpoena.and/or issue a protective Order, if the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matters, subjects a person to undue burden or requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential information.
Similarly, R. 1:9-2 states that in regard to a subpoena for the production of documents, “the court on motion … may quash or modify the subpoena … if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.” As discussed in detail below, this Court should quash plaintiffs’ subpoenas because they: (1) seek documents and information that are not relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims or defenses in this matter; (2) are unduly burdensome and oppressive; and (3) seek documents and information that are confidential and privileged.