[brief] State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138, 148 (2017).  Accordingly, this Court reviews the Law Division’s decision and “‘determin[es] whether those findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record."  State v. Castagna, 387 N.J. Super. 598, 604 (App. Div. 2006) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. Super. 146, 161-62 (App. Div. 1964)).  Without an “obvious and exceptional showing of error,” this Court accepts the concurring factual findings of the municipal court and Law Division.  State v. Mellody, 479 N.J. Super. 90, 108 (App. Div. 2024) (citing State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)).  As to legal determinations, this Court “owe[s] no deference. ”  Ibid. (citing State v. Handy, 206 N.J. 39, 45 (2011)).  However, this Court “generally defer[s] to a trial court's disposition of discovery matters unless the court has abused its discretion or its determination is based on a mistaken understanding of the applicable law. ”  State v. Ramirez, 252 N.J. 277, 298, (2022) (quoting State v. Brown, 236 N.J. 497, 521 (2019)).  Pursuant to R. 7:7-7(b), the State must provide municipal court defendants with all relevant discovery “if such evidence is in the State’s custody or control. ”  State v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582, 596 (2016).  The Rule’s mandate includes the disclosure of “video and sound recordings,” such as BWC and MVR footage.  Ibid.  While the Rule encompasses a large array of evidence, the right to discovery is not unlimited.  State v. Hernandez, 225 N.J. 451, 463 (2016).  The Rule does not allow for the expansion of discovery to allow “an unfocused, haphazard search for evidence” or a “foraging through files of other cases in search of relevant evidence. ”  Ibid. (citing State v. D.R.H., 127 N.J. 249, 256 (1992)); see also State v. R.W., 104 N.J. 14, 28 (1986).  [...] found defendant’s discovery-related claim “lack[ed] merit” for two reasons: 1.) defendant “never challenged the prosecutor’s statement on the record detailing all of the discovery provided to her on two occasions;” and 2.) defendant “failed to state with any specificity what discovery she was denied or how it would have affected the outcome. ”  Sa3-4.  [...] found defendant’s allegation of allegedly missing discovery was in direct conflict with the State’s repeated assertions that all existing discovery had been provided.  Id. at 3.  In fact, the record made clear that the State had gone so far as to provide defendant with “irrelevant” MVR recordings depicting [...]’s response to another case, thus going beyond that which was required of it by law.  Ibid.  [...]’s findings as to the sufficiency of the State’s provision of discovery are supported by the record, which amply reflects that on two separate occasions the State provided defendant with all videos documenting defendant’s offense.  Ibid.  Defendant’s current claim to the contrary is as baseless now as it was before the lower courts.  Defendant made no showing that evidence consistent with “her perception” of events ever existed, much less was improperly withheld by the State.  There was and still is nothing in the record to disprove the reality that defendant was provided all discovery.  As such, [...] properly rejected defendant’s discovery claim.  This Court should affirm.