In this legal malpractice action, the trial court denied plaintiff's eighth motion to extend discovery. Because a trial date was previously fixed in the sixth order extending discovery, the trial court determined the exceptional circumstances standard set forth in Rule 4:24-1(c) applied. It denied the motion because plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff failed to serve an expert report in support of her claims of legal malpractice. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding plaintiff's opposition to the motion was deficient, and her legal malpractice claims failed as a matter of law because she did not have an expert.
The court affirmed. It determined the trial court correctly applied the exceptional circumstances standard and did not misapply its discretion by denying the eighth motion to extend discovery. In doing so, the court addressed the scope of its decision in Hollywood Café Diner, Inc. v. Jaffee, 473 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 2022), to clarify that its limitation on the applicability of the exceptional circumstances standard set forth in Rule 4:24-1(c) applies only when an arbitration or trial date is set administratively by notice prior to the conclusion of the discovery period. It held that once an arbitration or trial date is set by a judge in a discovery end date (DED) extension or case management order entered after expiration of the applicable initial period of discovery set forth in Rule 4:24-1(a), no extension of the discovery period may be permitted unless exceptional circumstances are shown.