SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2319-21

THOMAS "TJ" MARTINO, PT,

DPT, and JULIANA MARTINO,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

CARTERET COMPREHENSIVE

MEDICAL CARE, P.C., d/b/a

MONROE COMPREHENSIVE

MEDICAL CARE, P.C., JOSEPH

BUFANO, JR., both individually

and as an Owner, Partner, Agent/

Servant and/or Employee of Carteret

Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C.,

d/b/a Monroe Comprehensive Medical 

Care, P.C., CHRISTOPHER BUFANO,

both individually and as an Owner,

Partner, Agent/Servant and/or Employee

of Carteret Comprehensive Medical 

Care, P.C., d/b/a Monroe Comprehensive 

Medical Care, P.C., and DR. MICAH

LEIBERMAN, both individually and as

an Owner, Partner, Agent/Servant and/

or Employee of Carteret Comprehensive

Medical Care, P.C., d/b/a Monroe 

Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C.,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-2319-21

Defendants-Appellants.

_____________________________

Submitted September 14, 2022 – Decided September 26, 2022

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior 

Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, 

Docket No. L-3906-20.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, attorneys for 

appellants (Michael S. Hanan and Stephanie 

Imbornone, on the briefs).

Goldman Davis Krumholz & Dillon PC, attorneys for 

respondent Thomas "TJ" Martino (Kelly A. Smith and 

Paula M. Dillon, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this discovery dispute arising from an employment action, defendants 

Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., d/b/a Monroe Comprehensive 

Medical Care, P.C., Joseph Bufano, Jr., Christopher Bufano, and Dr. Micah 

Leiberman appeal from a February 4, 2022 order, striking defendants' answer 

without prejudice for failure to provide discovery, and a February 24, 2022 

order, denying defendants' cross-motion for a protective order. We reverse. 

We discern the following facts from the record. Defendants own and 

operate several chiropractic and physical therapy facilities in New Jersey. 
3

A-2319-21

Plaintiff, a licensed physical therapist, was an employee of defendants until 

December 2019, when plaintiff was either fired or resigned.

On July 17, 2020, plaintiff filed his complaint against defendants alleging

violations of New Jersey employment law. On June 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a 

motion to compel responses to notices to produce dated April 8, 2021 and April 

22, 2021. The subject notices sought: (1) defendants' personnel files; (2) exit 

interviews of former employees; and (3) the insurance policy that may cover any 

potential recovery. 

On January 10, 2022,1the judge granted plaintiff's June 10, 2021 motion, 

ordering defendants to respond to plaintiff's discovery requests within fourteen 

days, and to produce witnesses for deposition. On January 25, 2022, defendants 

objected, claiming confidential information would be revealed by the document 

production. Defendants indicated that they would amend their response and 

produce the documents, provided they were marked as confidential pursuant to 

a confidentiality order. Defendants included a proposed confidentiality order 

for plaintiff's consideration. 

1

 The order is dated January 10, 2022 but defendants claim it was not uploaded 

to the E-docket or served until January 11, 2022. 
4

A-2319-21

Instead of responding to the request, on January 26, 2022, plaintiff filed a 

notice of motion on short notice to strike defendants' answer with prejudice.2

Prior to filing the motion to strike, plaintiff's counsel sent three emails to defense 

counsel inquiring about the outstanding court-ordered discovery. The first 

email, sent on January 25, 2022, at 4:19 p.m., stated, in relevant part: 

I am following up on the production of documents. Per 

the Court Order, these documents were to be provided 

yesterday. Please advise as to their status.

The second email, sent on January 25, 2022, at 5:29 p.m., stated:

I think you are in violation of the court's order. Further, 

I do not understand why you would not have provide[d] 

a Confidentiality Order some time ago, if that were the 

reason you withheld the production of the documents. 

Do you actually intend on producing anything? If so, 

how many pages do you intend on producing? 

I am fairly certain the Court will not be happy with your 

response.

The third and final email, sent on January 25, 2022, at 5:33 p.m., stated: 

After further consideration, please provide the 

responsive documents by close of business today, with 

or without the confidentiality order.

2 The trial court did not strike defendants' answer with prejudice; it only did so 

without prejudice.
5

A-2319-21

On January 31, 2022, a clerk's notice was entered on the E-docket, 

indicating that the court would hear the motion to strike defendants' answer on 

short notice on February 4, 2022. The clerk's notice did not set any deadline by 

which defendants would be required to submit opposition. If plaintiff's motion 

to strike had not been heard on short notice, it would have been returnable on 

February 18, 2022 and defendant's opposition would have been due on February 

10, 2022. 

On February 3, 2022, defendants filed opposition to plaintiff's motion to 

strike and a cross-motion for a protective order on short notice. The opposition 

was received by the court at 6:49 p.m. that same day. In addition, defendants 

uploaded over 700 pages of confidential, redacted documents to the court for an 

in-camera review.3 On February 4, 2022, a clerk's notice was entered on the Edocket indicating that defendants' cross-motion for a protective order would also 

be decided on February 4, 2022. 

On February 4, 2022, the motion judge entered an order granting plaintiff's 

motion, stating: "Defendant's Answer is stricken without prejudice for failure 

to comply with the Court's January 10, 2022, order." The order provided: 

3

 The "most highly sensitive information" in the confidential documents 

(including social security numbers, other personal identifiers, passwords, 

medical information, and unrelated insurance information) was redacted.
6

A-2319-21

The motion is GRANTED and deemed unopposed, as 

opposition was not filed until 6:49 [p.m.] the evening 

before the motion was returnable. The defense was 

made aware via a clerk's notice posted to the eCo[u]rts 

case jacket as of this matter on Monday, January 31, 

2022, that plaintiff's motion to strike would be heard on 

short notice. As the defense's cross-motion seeks a 

protective order of discovery which they have already 

been court ordered to produce, the cross-motion will be 

treated as a motion to reconsider that order. Moreover, 

the defense did not make any formal request for their 

cross-motion to be heard on short notice, so same will 

be treated as its own motion with a return date of 

February 18, 2022. 

By order dated February 24, 2022, the motion judge denied defendant's 

cross-motion for a protective order, which it treated as a motion to reconsider 

the earlier January 10th order. The order provided: 

Movant assumed that the Court would conduct an incamera review of these records and submitted 

everything to the Court without leave for an in-camera 

review. Under those circumstances, anything filed 

and/or submitted to the Court is open to public 

inspection. Clearly, if the documentation is open to the 

public, there is no need for a protective order. 

Moreover, as was previously indicated on the Court's 

Order dated February 4, 2022, this motion was 

considered a reconsideration of the Court's Order dated 

January 10, 2022, as Movant seeks a protective order 

concerning the materials the January 10, 2022 Order 

compelled Movant to produce. Pursuant to R. 4:42-2, 

no revision of the Court's Order dated January 10, 2022 

is required in the interest of justice. 
7

A-2319-21

On April 4, 2022, we granted defendants' motion for leave to appeal the 

February 4th and February 24th orders.

On appeal, defendants raise the following arguments: 

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING THE 

ORDER DATE FEBRUARY 4, 2022.

A. Plaintiff Did Not Obtain The 

Requisite Court Order For Having A 

Motion Heard On Short Notice.

B. Defendants Filed Opposition To 

Plaintiff's Motion To Strike That The Trial 

Court Failed To Consider.

C. On Procedural And Substantive 

Grounds, [Plaintiff's] Motion To Strike 

Should Not Have Been Granted.

D. The Trial Court Erred By Finding 

That Defendants Did Not Request That 

Their Cross-Motion Be Heard On Short 

Notice.

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING THE 

ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2022.

Having reviewed the record and the applicable Rules of Court, we 

conclude that the motion judge's determinations to hear plaintiff's motion on 

short notice, disregard the opposition, and treat the cross-motion as one for 
8

A-2319-21

reconsideration were each a mistaken exercise of his discretion. We are 

therefore constrained to reverse both orders. 

We first address the February 4, 2022 order, striking defendants' answer 

without prejudice. Rule 4:23-5 sets forth the well-established two-step process 

that works as a "procedural safeguard" for delinquent parties. Both steps must 

be satisfied before a motion to dismiss with prejudice can be entered for 

discovery violations. Thabo v. Z Transp., 452 N.J. Super. 359, 369-71 (App. 

Div. 2017). "The main objective of the rule is to compel [discovery] rather than 

to dismiss the case." Adedoyin v. Arc of Morris County Chapter, Inc., 325 N.J. 

Super. 173, 180 (App. Div. 1999) (quoting Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, 

cmt. 3 on R. 4:23-5). 

Step one is dismissal without prejudice. R. 4:23-5(a)(1). Thereafter, the 

delinquent party has sixty days to cure and move to reinstate the pleading. R.

4:23(a)(2). If it does not, step two allows the non-delinquent party to seek 

dismissal with prejudice. R. 4:23-5(a)(2). These procedural requirements "must 

be scrupulously followed and technically complied with." Thabo, 452 N.J. 

Super. at 369. 

A party seeking relief under Rule 4:23-5(a) must also comply with Rule

1:6-3(a), which prescribes the time frames for filing and serving all motion 
9

A-2319-21

papers. Pursuant to R. 1:6-3(a), a notice of motion must be filed and served no 

later than 16 days before the return date "unless otherwise provided by court 

order,"4and any opposition to the motion must be filed and served no later than 

8 days before the return date "unless the court relaxes that time." (emphasis 

added). 

There is no provision in the Court Rules that provides a procedure or 

standard for which to alter the time frames in R. 1:6-3(a) to allow a judge to hear 

a motion on short notice. In fact, the words "short notice" do not appear 

anywhere in the rules. Although the Rule affords a judge some discretion to 

relax the sixteen-day window, in this case there was no discernable justification 

to hear plaintiff's motion to strike on short notice, and the record does not 

establish any pressing need to truncate the briefing schedule set by the court 

rules. Moreover, as a matter of fairness, having determined to hear plaintiff's 

application on February 4, 2022, the judge should have entertained the 

opposition and cross-motion on short notice as well. 

4

 On January 31, 2022, defendants were notified by way of a clerk's notice, 

rather than court order, that the court would hear plaintiff's motion to strike on 

short notice.
10 A-2319-21

In that regard, the judge compounded the problem by disregarding the 

opposition as untimely. Under Rule 1:6-2(a), a motion will be deemed 

uncontested unless responsive papers are timely filed and served in adherence 

with the above briefing schedule. In Tyler v. New Jersey Auto. Full Ins. 

Underwriting Ass'n, however, we cautioned against trial courts refusing to 

consider motion papers that were filed late but were in the court's hands prior to 

the return date, stating: 

It is a mistaken exercise of judgment to close the 

courtroom doors to a litigant whose opposition papers 

are late but are in the court's hands before the return day 

for a motion which determines the meritorious outcome 

of a consequential lawsuit. "Swift justice demands 

more than just swiftness." Late filings of motion papers 

can be met with a variety of judicial responses afforded 

by existing court rules. Among them are sanctions 

designed to discourage late filings without determining 

the outcome of a case.

228 N.J. Super. 463, 468 (App. Div. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Bannan, 256 

F.2d 363, 390 (6th Cir. 1958) (Stewart, J., dissenting)).

The motion judge's disregard of defendants' opposition is particularly 

unfair because his decision to hear plaintiff's motion to strike on short notice 

prevented defendants from being able to file opposition or a cross-motion eight 

days before the return date, as required by the rule. Further, the clerk's notice 

failed to set a new deadline for defendants to file opposition or a cross-motion. 
11 A-2319-21

Given the truncated and ambiguous briefing schedule, we find that the trial 

court's refusal to consider defendants' opposition papers is precisely the type of 

"injustice" that the general relaxation provision of R. 1-1:2 seeks to protect 

against.

As a final concern, plaintiff's submission was procedurally deficient and,

for that reason alone, should not have been granted. Rule 4:23-5(a)(3) requires 

the moving party to comply with R. 1:6-2(c) before moving to strike, which 

states: 

Every motion in a civil case . . . involving any aspect of 

pretrial discovery . . . shall be listed for disposition only 

if accompanied by a certification stating that the 

attorney for the moving party has either (1) personally 

conferred orally or has made a specifically described 

good faith attempt to confer orally with the attorney for 

the opposing party in order to resolve the issues raised 

by the motion by agreement or consent order and that 

such effort at resolution has been unsuccessful, or (2) 

advised the attorney for the opposing party by letter, 

after the default has occurred, that continued noncompliance with a discovery obligation will result in an 

appropriate motion being made without further attempt 

to resolve the matter.

Here, the three emails sent in the space of less than an hour the day before 

the motion was filed do not satisfy the Rule, as plaintiff's counsel did not

indicate that defense counsel's continued non-compliance would "result in an 

appropriate motion being made." There is no mention of any proposed course 
12 A-2319-21

of action and no attempt to meet and confer. In that regard, defense counsel 

indicated that they would amend their response and produce the documents 

requested if plaintiff's counsel would agree to mark the documents confidential 

pursuant to a confidentiality order. Plaintiff's counsel did not certify that no 

confidential materials were included in the demand or why they would otherwise 

not sign the order. Plaintiff's counsel only certified as to the communications 

contained in the January 25, 2022 emails, which were clearly deficient. We find 

that plaintiff's failure to make a good faith attempt at resolving the discovery 

dispute that is at the heart of his motion to strike further precludes the relief 

granted by the trial court.

With respect to the order dated February 24, 2022, we find the judge erred 

in treating the cross-motion as a motion for reconsideration of the judge's 

January 10th order. Defendants do not dispute their obligation to provide the 

documents but seek the court's intervention to protect confidential information 

about non-parties. As the motion judge found, defendants' posting the disputed 

documents to the case file online is highly problematic in that njcourts.gov is a 

public domain subject to unfettered inspection by the public. The appropriate 
13 A-2319-21

procedure would be to request an in-camera review and, if permission is granted, 

defendants would submit unredacted copies to the judge's chambers under seal. 5

At the same time, we find the judge was unduly dismissive of the 

nonparties' privacy rights. The court can issue an order to remove the documents 

from the case jacket and allow defendants to follow the appropriate procedure 

for requesting an in-camera review to determine if in fact the documents contain 

any confidential information. If so, the judge may redact the record or provide 

that the documents will be produced subject to a confidentiality order. 

Alternatively, plaintiff may wish, in the interests of expediency, to execute the 

proposed confidentiality order, or one with revisions. In any event, the issue 

whether defendants are entitled to a protective order needs to be resolved on the 

merits in order for the case to progress.

To the extent that we have not addressed defendants' remaining 

arguments, we find that they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Reversed. We do not retain jurisdiction. 

5 We reject defendants' argument that the judge was required as a matter of law 

to review the documents. Defendants' argument to the contrary relies on two 

unpublished opinions of this Court which are neither on point nor controlling.