The Supreme Court announced this morning that it has granted review in four more cases.  Two of them address discovery issues, and two involve criminal matters.

In Brugaletta v. Garcia, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Does the absolute privilege of documents developed as part of a hospital’s self-critical analysis, pursuant to the Patient Safety Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.23 to -12.25, apply to the documents at issue in this medical malpractice action?”  The Law Division ordered partial disclosure of

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