ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] [...] strongly disagrees with [...]’s one-sided recitation of the facts and present the following facts to this Court’s attention.  [...] was the new landlord of a commercial property rented by [...].  When disagreements between the parties arose, [...] sued for possession and collection of rents, and the case was settled.  Under the Settlement Agreement, [...] agreed to make four payments of $46,058.39 each for July, August, September, and October 2023.  [...] made all of those payments except for October 2023 because of [...]’s rush, self-help and forced repossession of the property.  [...] had an obligation to leave the property in good repair and dispose of personal property and debris in accordance with the Lease Agreement:  20.  Maintenance of Repairs.  During the term of the lease:  a.  Landlord will have no obligation to provide maintenance, repairs, replacements or services at the Premises.  Tenant shall, at its own cost and expense, keep and maintain the Leasehold in good repair.  This obligation shall include, but not be limited to, all repairs and maintenance of the parking areas, floors, windows, interior walls, interior and exterior glass, doors, office partitions, bathrooms, mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, light fixtures, ramps, dock levelers and loading doors…  Pa79.  To that end, [...] spent $6,000 in dumpsters where such items were disposed of.  Pa179.  During this time, an individual by the name of [...] stopped by the property, and having seen the dumpsters and clean-up effort, offered to provide paving services to repair the parking lot and loading dock areas which were in disrepair.  Pa175.  [...] told [...] that he possessed surplus construction materials left over from a prior project, and that the areas at the property which needed repair would be paved for $1,500.  Ibid.  He assured that this was good asphalt that could be used at [...]’s facility.  Ibid.  [...] took the deposition of [...] on December 20, 2023 pursuant to a subpoena.  Pa250.  In his deposition, [...] confirmed that he went to the property in September 2023 to repair holes in the parking lot.  Pa263, 48:21-22; 52:20-53:1.  [...] discussed with [...] flattening the lot and bulldozing asphalt millings to cover the holes, including a large hole in front of the warehouse.  Pa264, 55:9-59:15.  He testified that there were a lot of holes and he filled them.  Pa267, 65:16-68:5.  Abruptly, before [...] made the last of the four settlement payments, [...] rushed to the premises and stopped the repair of the property’s parking lot, locked out [...], and took over the property because of fears of alleged contamination.
[brief] \(^3\)  See, e.g., [...], et al., *Protective Orders in the Age of Hacking*, The American Lawyer, Mar. 16, 2015 (“As discovery has become predominately digital, producing parties must now face the threat of third parties stealing highly sensitive information not just from their and their advisor's computer systems, but their opponents' data systems as well. ”). enforced by the threat of sanctions, but sanctions can be enforced only against those that are subject to the protective order — not those in foreign jurisdictions.  Further, there is a real risk the documents will be accessed by those who have not been given permission to access them.  At a time when even blue chip corporate law firms — [...], [...], [...], [...], and [...] just to name a few\(^4\) — have been hacked and bad actors worldwide continue relentlessly to target major U.S. entities, the risks that a sensationalistic target like personal emails of hundreds of custodians will be vulnerable to hacking cannot be underestimated. \(^5\)  For many cases, like this one, there are millions of documents that need to be reviewed.  It is ever more important to protect irrelevant, sensitive data from being produced, lest they fall into the wrong hands.  Protective orders do not protect against this risk.  --- \(^4\)  See [...], [...], & [...], *Law Firm Cyberattacks Grow, Putting Operations in Legal Peril*, Bloomberg L., Jul. 7, 2023.  \(^5\)  At a time when partisan political emotions are pronounced, there can be no guarantee someone given access to personal information of Defendants’ custodians will honor the obligation to preserve confidentiality if the reviewer opposes the custodian’s political views.  See, e.g., [...], *They Paid $42 for a SoulCycle Ride, Not for Trump*, N.Y. Times, Aug. 8, 2019 (customers boycott and fitness chains do damage control after news of stakeholder holding fundraiser for President Trump); [...], *Gruden’s Emails Were Collateral Damage in Washington Football Inquiry*, N.Y. Times, Oct. 12, 2021 (leaked emails discovered in a confidential investigation into workplace harassment claims led to the firing of a NFL coach).  Further, Rule 4:10-2 strictly forbids the production of irrelevant material because requesting parties and their counsel, including those here, are not entitled to even see such material, and once seen, this bell cannot be unrung.
[brief] But as noted by the Board in its Resolution, the opinion of [...] with regard to the intensity of the proposed development is founded on traffic data that does not compare or distinguish traffic generation from taller and shorter buildings, and that the Board did not find probative.  Ja032, paragraph 30.  In his testimony, [...] stated his reliance upon the ITE traffic data and testimony of Plaintiffs’ traffic expert that was debunked earlier in this Brief:  I think when I talked about [...] [sic]I mentioned the -- that the standard would be to go back and look at the intent of the height restriction, and it would principally relate to sort of light, air, and open space.  And, secondarily, intensity of development.  I want to deal with the intensity issue first.
[brief] **B.  Newly Discovered Evidence of [...]’s Bad Faith and Misconduct. **  As discussed in Point I.4, [...] officials and the prosecutor repeatedly denied there were policies and procedures addressing the destruction of the video in this case, and maintained policies were available only in an online database.  The court and counsel relied on these representations, and the court declined to find bad faith because it could not determine whether a policy had been violated.  The withheld policies were violated by [...].  [...] relies on his earlier arguments and adds it is unjust to penalize him for his attorney’s misguided reliance on the representations of [...] officials, including the prosecutor in the case.
[brief] THE COUNCIL DECISION TO AWARD THE SUPPORT RESOLUTION TO BLAZE WAS NOT ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, NOR UNREASONABLE, AND WAS PREDICATED UPON A SUBSTANTIAL, CREDIBLE MUNICIPAL RECORD DEVELOPED FOLLOWING A PROCESS THAT COMPLIED WITH APPLICABLE LAW (Pa1)  The trial court correctly found that the process which resulted in the award to [...] was compliant with applicable law, and was predicated upon a substantial, credible municipal record developed before the Borough below.  There is no reason, given applicable legal requirements governing municipal action, to disturb those results.  (i)  Standard of Review of Municipal Action  "Legislative action of municipal and county bodies is presumed valid, and will be upheld in the absence of sufficient proof to overcome the presumption."
[brief] ”  Here, it is clear from other sections of the Highlands Act that its “overall policy and purpose” is to set a high bar to any development in the Preservation Area.  --- 44 Frugis v. Bracigliano, 177 N.J. 250, 280 (2003) (emphasis added).  in order to protect this environment.  For example, under N.J.S.A. § 13:20-2 ("Findings, declarations relative to the “Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act”), “The Legislature...f[ound] and declare[d]...that the State should take action to delineate within the New Jersey Highlands a preservation area of exceptional natural resource value that includes watershed protection and other environmentally sensitive lands where stringent protection policies should be implemented. ”45
[brief] The conducting of farm practices at any and all times when necessary.  (11)  Recreational use (snowmobiling, off-highway vehicle use, hunting, etc.) as permitted by the farm owner, with the provision that any recreational use of farm land that changes the underlying agricultural nature of the land shall be subject to the usual site plan review, variance application and all permits where otherwise required.  (12)  Provisions for the wholesale and retail marketing of the agricultural output of the farm which include the building of temporary and permanent structures, signage and parking areas for said purpose which all must conform with applicable provisions of this chapter, including requirements for accessory structures as set forth in § 230-128, and design standards for site plans as set forth in Part 2 of this chapter.
[brief] Applying that settled rule, this Court has repeatedly affirmed orders denying discovery where the information sought was irrelevant to the claims or defenses at issue.  See, e.g., *Canlar by Canlar v. Est.  of Yacoub*, 2018 WL 3543157, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 24, 2018); *Carbis Sales, Inc. v. Eisenberg*, 397 N.J. Super. 64, 81 (App. Div. 2007).  The same rule governs discovery involving ESI.
[brief] Generally, "[a] motion under Rule 4:50-1 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which should be guided by equitable principles in determining whether relief should be granted or denied."  Hous. Auth. of the Town of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994).  A motion to vacate a default judgment should be liberally granted to the extent that justice requires.  State of Maine v. SeKap, S.A. Greek Co-op. Cigarette Mfg., S.A., 392 N.J. Super. 227, 240 (App. Div. 2007).  A motion to vacate a default judgment for lack of service is governed by Rule 4:50-1(d).  BV001Blocker, LLC v. 53 W. Somerset St. Props., LLC, 467 N.J.Super. 117, 125 (App Div. 2021); Jameson v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 363 N.J.Super. 419, 425 (App. Div. 2003).  A "trial court's determination under [Rule 4:50-1] warrants substantial deference and should not be reversed unless it results in a clear abuse of discretion."
[brief] A.  Appellant has failed to identify any employee of [...] that worked on the project that were not licensed professionals (i) [...] was an independent contractor and as [...] is not liable for the acts of its independent contractor B.  Even if [...] was an employee of [...], the case of *Haviland v. Lourdes Medical Center*, 250 N.J. 368 (2022) is not applicable to the case at bar C.  The New Jersey Supreme Court imposes a duty of care upon licensed professionals based on heightened knowledge and understanding D.  The accident did not arise out of any act of [...] but rather the purported failure of [...] and [...] to ensure compliance with the contract documents and as such, an affidavit of merit was required  CONCLUSION TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
[directive] CUMMA and regulations promulgated by the Department of Health have features designed to prevent the fraudulent acquisition and illegal diversion of medical marijuana.  For example, all bona fide medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers will have been issued a registry identification card that includes the following information: • a photograph of the patient or caregiver; • the name of the patient or caregiver; • a unique identification number; • an ultraviolet imbedded picture of the cardholder viewable only under a black light; • an expiration date (two years after issuance) after which the card is null and void;  Furthermore, medical marijuana can only be dispensed by an Alternate Treatment Center in heat-sealed packages that each hold no more than one-quarter ounce of useable marijuana.  All individual packages of medical marijuana dispensed by an Alternate Treatment Center must bear a label that contains the following information: -4- • name and address of the Alternate Treatment Center; • quantity of the medical marijuana contained within the package; • THC level and whether the product is designated as low, medium, or high strength strain; • date of dispensing to the qualifying patient or primary caregiver; • patient’s name and registry identification number.  More complete and detailed information about the medical marijuana affirmative defense can be found in the Attorney General Medical Marijuana Enforcement Guidelines for Police.
[brief] Statutes: N.J.S.A. 39:3-29 ..............................................................................................................7  N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 ..............................................................................................................7  N.J.S.A. 39:4-81 ..............................................................................................................7  N.J.S.A. 39:4-96 ..............................................................................................................7  Treatises: [...], Guide to Hearing Drunk Driving Cases, N.J. Dept. of Health, Div. of Alcoholism, Intoxicated Driving Programs Unit (1988)  .................................................................22  [...], et al., Evaluation of Field Sobriety Tests for Identifying Drivers Under the Influence of Cannabis: A Randomized Clinical Trial, JAMA Psychiatry, https://jamanetwork. com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2807719 (2023)  ........26  NHTSA, DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Refresher Course, https://www.nj.gov/njsp/division/investigations/pdf/adtu/2023_DWI_Detection_and_Standardized_Field_Sobriety_Testing-Participant_Guide.pdf (2023)...............................25  ABBREVIATIONS: DWI ............................................................driving while under the influence HGN ..........................................................horizontal gaze nystagmus  JAMA......................................................  Journal of the American Medical Association  MVR .......................................................... mobile video recording NHTSA ................................................  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  OLS ..........................................................one-leg-stand SFST, FST ............................................. standardized field sobriety testing  W&T ..........................................................walk-and-turn  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
[brief] Pa665-66.  On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.  Pa1706-710.  On February 12, 2023, the Honorable [...], C.J.A.D. issued a sua sponte order that temporarily remanded this matter to the trial court to issue an order deciding Defendant’s Fee Application.  Pa669.  On March 11, 2024, [...] awarded Defendant attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $119,256.40.
[brief] Q: … You didn’t speak to the brother right?  A: We did not, no.  Q: Did you ever meet the brother?  A: No.  Q: Never met him during the course of this investigation, correct, personally?  A: No, I didn’t.  Q:  You did know through this investigation that this supposed money – this 25,000 and a motive – I guess it’s a motive, maybe, was something that was related to the grandmother or the mother, correct?  It went back to them, right?  A: That’s correct.  Q:  And you do know that the 25,000 was also supposed to have – other than the theory of the motive – it was supposed to have been sent to, not only [...], but [...]’s brother, correct?  A: That’s correct.  Q: Oh.  So, bottom line is the brother was never spoken to, correct?  A: No, sir.  Q: He wasn’t even spoken to after … [...] was talking about his brother on this tape that we heard before, right?  A: Again, we never spoke to [...]’s brother, [...].  (17T:169-15 to 171-9).  The assistant prosecutor revisited this line of questioning on re-direct:
[directive] Accordingly, for issuance of basis establishes the or Judge advise the Assignment shall 3:6-8, the prosecutor Rule returned pursuant to indictment is seeking issuance State whether the is returned whom the indictment is before other designated judge factual provide the judge with the shall if the prosecutor and so, acomplaint-warrant on indictment, of issued.  acomplaint-summons should be presumption that overcoming the basis for Risk-Assessment Results Are Not Automated Pretrial Where 4.9.2 Direct-Indictment Cases Available. provisions and of the in this subsection, all expressly provided otherwise Except as determination prosecutor's the Directive shall apply to of this forth in Section 4 set presumptions direct indictment. following the return of a acomplaint-warrant issue whether the court to request to for this offense and been arrested will not have case in adirect-indictment defendant
[brief] On July 7, 2023, the court entered a consent judgment for [...] and against [...] for $1,250,000, subject to a covenant by [...] not to execute the judgment against [...] but instead to take an assignment of [...]’s claims against its insurance policies.  Ja40-42.  On July 21, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting [...] leave to file a First-Amended Complaint, Ja43, which [...] filed on July 27, 2023, Ja44-61.  In addition to [...], the Amended Complaint named as defendants [...] and [...] and sought benefits under the [...] Employers Liability Policy and the [...] excess policy.  The Amended Complaint also named [...], but articulated no specific basis for coverage under [...]’s comprehensive general liability policy.  Ja44-61.  By a new Third Count of the Amended Complaint, [...] sought a declaratory judgment that [...] and [...] were required to provide coverage for [...]’s liability in the personal injury action.  Ja47-48.  By a new Fourth Count, [...] alleged that [...]’s and [...]’s basis for denying coverage under the C.5 exclusion of the [...] policy violates public policy and N.J.S. A. 34:15-72.  Ja48-49.  [...] sought compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and other monetary remedies from [...] and [...].  Ja48-49.  On September 5, 2023, in lieu of an Answer, [...] filed a motion to dismiss [...]’s coverage claims.  Ja62-63.  [...] and [...] then filed a joint motion on September 11, 2023, to dismiss the claims against them under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim.  Ja84-85.  On October 10, 2023, [...] filed opposition to Defendant insurers’ motions and his own cross-motion for partial summary judgment in his favor.  Ja431-32.  Defendant insurers filed oppositions to the cross-motion and reply arguments on their motions to dismiss.  Ja488-524.  While the motions were pending, [...] died.
[brief] So we will not read in that exception when the parties negotiated none. ”).  Fifth, the use of the phrase “any party” – instead of “third-party” – in the phrase “[[...]] shall not be liable to any party” makes clear that the indemnity obligation that follows this phrase was meant to cover liability to [...] or [...].  Chairperson v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 77 A.3d 121, 129 (Conn. 2013) (noting that Black’s Law Dictionary defined “party” as “‘[o]ne by or against whom a lawsuit is brought,’ or in the context of contracts, ‘one who takes part in a transaction’”).  Thus, it is clear that the parties agreed that [...] would not just have no liability to third parties, but that it would also have no liability to the parties to the PSA.  Had they intended otherwise, the parties would have drafted this provision to state that [...] was only not to be liable to third parties.  They chose not to do so.  [...]’s right to indemnity from [...] contained in Section 17.1(b) of the PSA is confirmed and reiterated by Section 17.1(c), which reads: \textit{[[...]] shall not be required to defend any legal proceeding which may be instituted against it} with respect to the Escrowed Funds, the Real Property or the subject matter of this Agreement unless requested to do so by [Plaintiff] or [the] Seller and \textit{unless [[...]] is indemnified to its satisfaction against the cost and expense of such defense}.
[brief] In the winter of 2018 and after that time, Appellant testified that [...] became curt, his tone in communicating with Appellant changed and he was not polite to her and no longer open and available.  (Pa1, Complaint and Jury Demand; Pa196, Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories; Pa211, [...] Dep., T134:3-25, T135:1-10).  Appellant testified that she was being treated in a biased way and clearly noted that in a number of circumstances, Caucasian Vice Principals were treated differently and better than she was treated when it came to being informed about issues at school.  The issue was the hostile work environment created by [...].
[directive] ¿Entiende usted que si el examen revela que su conducta se caracteriza por un patrón de comportamiento repetidor y compulsivo, el juez lo podrá sentenciar a la reclusión en el Centro Diagnóstico y de Tratamiento para un programa de tratamiento especializado para su condición mental?  Do you understand if the examination reveals that your conduct is characterized by a pattern of repetitive and compulsive behavior, the judge may sentence you to confinement at the [...] for a program of specialized treatment for your mental condition?  [Sí/Yes]  [No/No]  3.
[brief] On April 4, 2016, three weeks before his May 1, 2016 retirement, one of plaintiff’s subordinates, [...], circulated a flyer promoting a retirement gathering for [...].  (Da4).  Later that day, defendant [...], a coworker of [...] --- 3 Defendants had submitted a confidential two-exhibit appendix with a motion to file certain documents under seal.  The motion was granted.  (Da1).  Plaintiff submitted the second exhibit in his appendix.  (Pa893).  The first exhibit, and Durocher, emailed defendants [...], [...], and [...], and three non-parties a modified version of the legitimate Durocher retirement flyer.  (Pa261; Pa297).  The irreverent flyer was created by [...] and [...].  (Pa614; Pa891-Pa893).  It made reference to issues some recipients had about plaintiff at work including: “talk[ing] endlessly at staff meetings,” “hit[ting] us as we walk down the hallway,” and the report of plaintiff being seen under [...]’s desk.  (Pa893).  It also made light of the perception that plaintiff wore his pants low on his hips.  (Pa893).  This was not the same flyer that appeared publicly in the office eight days later on April 12, 2016.  (Pa888).  Plaintiff describes the flyer posted in the DEP office as alleging [...] violated the law.  (Pa260).  The flyer privately circulated by [...] makes no such allegation.  (Pa893).  Linda [...]  Plaintiff alleges that Linda [...] was a coworker.  (Pa246).  He admits that on March 1, 2016, [...] was told by [...] that [...] had been seen under her desk while she was on vacation.  (Pa679).  [...] faults [...] for reporting this Durocher’s flyer, is submitted here.  (Da4).  Because the public record has contained multiple references to the alterations to the original flyer, and the original flyer is not the subject of any discipline of a public employee, the confidential designation made of the document when it was produced in discovery is no longer necessary.