The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in Saint Peter’s University Hospital, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc.  That case, and related litigation involving hospitals and Horizon, has gotten much publicity in the press.  The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “In this action concerning defendant’s implementation of the OMNIA two-tiered provider network, did the trial court err in ordering the production of certain discovery, which defendant contends was inconsistent with the Appellate Division̵

On this date in 2003, the Appellate Division decided Seacoast Builders Corp. v. Rutgers, 358 N.J. Super. 524 (App. Div. 2003).  This was a relatively rare case in which the Appellate Division exercised original jurisdiction under Rule 2:10-5 to decide a discovery issue.  It was an even more rare result, since the panel ordered that documents otherwise protected by privilege be disclosed as a sanction for attorney misconduct.

This was a breach of construction contract case involving the alleged failure of Rutgers University to pay plaintiff on a multi-million dollar change

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in three more cases.  In Granata v. Broderick, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Among other issues, can an attorney’s pledge of anticipated counsel fees be considered a security interest under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code?  The Appellate Division answered “yes” in an opinion by Judge Guadagno that was reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2016).  That opinion observed that this was “an issue of first impression in New Jersey,̶