The Supreme Court announced that it has granted leave to appeal in two cases. Both are from published opinions of the Appellate Division.
DiFiore v. Pezic involves three cases that were consolidated for the purpose of issuing a single opinion. The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “When, if ever, may a plaintiff with alleged cognitive limitations, psychological impairments, or language barriers be accompanied by a third party to a defense medical examination or have the examination recorded to preserve objective evidence of what occurred during the examination?” In an opinion reported at 472 N.J. Super. 100 (App. Div. 2022), and discussed here, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division adopted a series of “holdings,” as “guidance” and “in the absence of more specific guidance within the present text of Rule 4:19.” Now the Supreme Court will weigh in.
Facebook, Inc. v. State of New Jersey presents this question: “Can the State obtain prospective electronic communications from a Facebook account via a communications data warrant, or is a wiretap order required?” The Appellate Division’s opinion, which involved two cases consolidated for the purpose of issuing one opinion, held that wiretap orders were not required, but that the communications data warrants issued were too lengthy in duration and required modification. That opinion, which was summarized here, was reported at 471 N.J. Super. 430 (App. Div. 2022).