SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-2773-22 

ROBERT RIVERA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

UNION COUNTY, TOWNSHIP 

OF HILLSIDE, 

 Defendant-Respondent, 

and 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW 

JERSEY AMERICAN WATER, 

and/or ELIZABETHTOWN WATER 

COMPANY, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________ 

Submitted May 21, 2024 – Decided August 20, 2024 

Before Judges Sumners and Smith. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Union County, Docket No. L-3250-20.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-2773-22

Forman, Cardonsky & Tsinman LLC, attorneys for 

appellant (Samuel Tsinman, on the briefs). 

Rainone Coughlin Minchello, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent (Thomas Schoendorf, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

Plaintiff appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to extend 

discovery pursuant to Rule 4:24-1(c). We affirm. 

We briefly recount the salient factual and procedural history. On October 

2, 2020, plaintiff sued defendant Hillside Township (Hillside) for alleged 

damages he sustained after his vehicle struck a raised manhole cover. During 

the litigation, plaintiff amended his complaint to add defendant New Jersey 

American Water Company (New Jersey American), and discovery was extended 

five times in orders dated: June 20, 2021; August 11, 2021; November 19, 2021;

March 18, 2022; and October 26, 2022. The discovery extensions had different 

origins. The June 20 order was issued by the court after a case management 

conference. The August 11 extension stemmed from plaintiff's letter request for 

an automatic extension pursuant to Rule 4:24-1. The November 19 extension 

order resulted from a motion by Hillside. The March 18, 2022 and October 26, 

2022 discovery extension orders were the result of plaintiff's motion practice. 
3 A-2773-22

The trial court issued the fifth and final discovery extension order on 

October 26, 2022. The order set out a detailed schedule, which included: all 

written discovery to be exchanged by November 21, 2022; fact witness 

depositions completed by December 21, 2022; plaintiff's expert report due by

January 5, 2023; and defense's expert report due by February 5, 2023. In the 

same order, the court scheduled trial for February 13, 2023. 

While New Jersey American's motion for summary judgment was 

pending, plaintiff moved to extend discovery for a sixth time, on February 3, 

2023. The trial court denied the motion by order dated February 3, 2023 without 

argument, and noted the motion was unopposed. The court's order incorporated 

written findings, which stated: 

This auto negligence case is over two years old, has had 

[five discovery] extensions and has had arbitration and 

trial dates scheduled. There has been no showing of 

diligence and thus no exceptional circumstances. 

. . . . 

Denied as arbitration date is scheduled and the 

movant has [f]ailed to make a showing of exceptional 

circumstances as [r]equired by R[ule] 4:24-1(c). 

Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, contending his expert witness was 

unable to issue an opinion at the eleventh hour, necessitating a search for a new 

expert. According to plaintiff, this last-minute expert witness challenge 
4 A-2773-22

warranted a finding of exceptional circumstances. The court denied 

reconsideration on March 17, 2023, making findings on the record similar to the 

ones it made on February 3. Citing Rule 4:24-1(c), the court found plaintiff had 

not shown exceptional circumstances warranting a sixth extension of discovery 

on the eve of trial. The court made no findings relative to reconsideration, 

electing instead to address the merits of plaintiff's motion. 

Plaintiff appeals, arguing that he has shown exceptional circumstances 

under Rule 4:24-1(c), and that the trial abused its discretion by failing to grant 

the motion to extend discovery. Plaintiff contends that his expert notified him 

in January 2023 that he would not be able to offer an opinion, and that the expert 

informed him of this after a New Jersey American fact witness was deposed on 

January 23, 2023. He contends that this late news necessitated his motion to 

extend discovery a sixth time to get a new expert. Plaintiff further contends that 

New Jersey American had just been added as a defendant in 2022, and that an 

associate's departure and COVID-related office issues hampered plaintiff's 

counsel's firm in 2022. 

"An appellate court applies 'an abuse of discretion standard to decisions 

made by [the] trial courts relating to matters of discovery.'" Hollywood Café 

Diner, Inc. v. Jaffee, 473 N.J. Super. 210, 216 (App. Div. 2022) (quoting C.A. 
5 A-2773-22

by Applegrad v. Bentolila, 219 N.J. 449, 459 (2014) (alteration in original)). "It 

'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.'" Ibid. (quoting C.A., 219 N.J. at 459 

(alterations in original)). 

The relevant language of Rule 4:24-1(c) is clear: "[n]o extension of the 

discovery period may be permitted after an arbitration or trial date is fixed, 

unless exceptional circumstances are shown." We have identified four factors 

to consider when deciding whether a party has shown "exceptional 

circumstances" warranting an extension of discovery. 

[T]he movant must demonstrate "(1) why discovery has 

not been completed within time and counsel's diligence 

in pursuing discovery during that time; (2) the 

additional discovery or disclosure sought is essential; 

(3) an explanation for counsel's failure to request an 

extension of the time for discovery within the original 

time period; and (4) the circumstances presented were 

clearly beyond the control of the attorney and litigant 

seeking the extension of time." 

[Hollywood Café Diner, 473 N.J. Super at 217 (quoting 

Rivers v. LSC Partnership, 378 N.J. Super 68, 79 (App. 

Div. 2005)).]

We affirm for the reasons set forth in the trial court's order of February 3, 

2023, as well as the court's oral statement of reasons supporting its denial of 
6 A-2773-22

reconsideration. While plaintiff did not, either before the trial court or in his 

merits brief before us, address each of the four factors to support his argument 

for a sixth discovery extension, we nonetheless offer the following brief 

comment. 

 A review of the record reveals nothing which would cause us to conclude 

that the trial court abused its discretion. The deposition which led to plaintiff's 

late-breaking expert issues took place after fact depositions were to have been 

completed. The trial court noted correctly that plaintiff failed to show due 

diligence by promptly moving to compel fact depositions prior to the deadlines 

set in the October 26, 2022 order. Staffing concerns, understandably impactful 

to plaintiff's counsel, are insufficient to show extraordinary circumstances on 

this record. See Hartsfield v. Fantini, 149 N.J. 611, 618 (1997) (recognizing 

exceptional circumstances do not encompass excusable neglect, negligence or 

carelessness by an attorney or his staff).

Affirmed.