- CAROL A. BUCK VS. JAMES A. BUCK (FM-08-0515-16, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1005-21 Appellate April 13, 2023
- IN THE MATTER OF ANTONIO SALTERS, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-1265-21 Appellate April 13, 2023
- WILLIAM KWASNIK VS. OMNI INSURANCE GROUP, ET AL. (L-4685-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1497-21 Appellate April 13, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANTE PICOTT (13-04-0441, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1863-21 Appellate April 13, 2023
- WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, ET AL. VS. GARY BYNUM, ET AL (F-009588-20, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2227-21 Appellate April 13, 2023
- LOUIS FREEMAN VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET AL. (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-0380-21 Appellate April 14, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAIME CENTENO (09-06-2092, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0887-21 Appellate April 14, 2023
- DCPP VS. S.P., IN THE KINSHIP MATTER OF J.P. (FL-02-0029-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1939-21 Appellate April 14, 2023
- CITY OF ELIZABETH VS. FAIRLYNN CHISOLM (G-20-094260, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2412-21 Appellate April 14, 2023
- DCPP VS. L.C.F. AND A.D.M., ET AL., IN THE MATTER OF N.B. AND N.M. (FN-07-0142-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2545-21 Appellate April 14, 2023
- DCPP VS. D.S.-S.R. AND M.M., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF H.J.R. (FG-15-0030-20, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3783-21 Appellate April 14, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. AYONI WILLIAMS (17-08-2129, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3611-19 Appellate April 17, 2023
- JULIO CAMACHO VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET AL. (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-1008-21 Appellate April 17, 2023
- A.I.S. VS. N.A.R. (FV-02-0734-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1972-21 Appellate April 17, 2023
- DCPP VS. K.K.K., ET AL. (FG-11-0056-19, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-3266-21/A-3268-21 Appellate April 17, 2023
- ESTATE OF NATALYA METELITSA, ET AL. VS. PENN MEDICINE PRINCETON HEALTH, ET AL. (L-0482-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0191-22 Appellate April 17, 2023
- BENJAMIN MOORE & CO. VS. CITY OF NEWARK, ET AL. (L-1208-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0836-19/A-1213-19 Appellate April 18, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARVIN OLIVER GRAHAM (04-09-1305, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3209-20 Appellate April 18, 2023
- G.H. VS. M.M. (FM-07-1495-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0499-21 Appellate April 18, 2023
- ESTATE OF RICHARD M. LASIW, ET AL. VS. PEDRO M. PEREIRA M.D., ET AL. (L-0387-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1231-21 Appellate April 18, 2023 Summary A-1231-21 In this medical malpractice litigation, plaintiff, individually and as executrix of her late husband's estate, moved to compel defendants to permit her expert to conduct an onsite inspection of decedent's electronic medical record (EMR). Plaintiff contended that pursuant to Rule 4:18-1, she had the right to inspect and examine the "metadata" associated with the EMR, which exceeded more than 2,000 pages and had already been produced in PDF format by defendants. Plaintiff agreed that defendants would control the log in to the computer system and the mouse guiding the expert's review. Plaintiff also agreed not to access the system through the use of thumb drives or discs to copy any information. Plaintiff also sought production of an "audit trail" of the EMR for nearly a full year after decedent's discharge. Defendants objected, arguing the discovery request was unduly burdensome and posed security risks and the risk of exposing other patient's EMR. They argued that plaintiff should identify specific entries in the record for which she sought metadata, and they would produce it, subject to assertions of confidentiality or privilege. Defendants also objected to producing the audit trail, claiming it, too, was unduly burdensome and irrelevant. The Law Division judge granted plaintiff's motion, and the court granted defendants leave to appeal. The court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to access metadata in decedent's EMR pursuant to Rules 4:10-2(f) and 4:18-1, and that defendants bore the burden of demonstrating the discovery request was unduly burdensome. The court agreed with the motion judge's conclusion that defendants failed to do so, and the proposed inspection was reasonable. The court affirmed that portion of the judge's order granting the inspection as modified by reasonable restrictions, including a time limit for the inspection of four hours. The court, however, reversed that portion of the judge's order requiring defendants to produce a post-discharge audit trail that extended beyond the date of the last entries made to decedent's EMR, finding plaintiff failed to demonstrate the potential for relevant information from such a broad request. Close