Opinion
C.A. No. N19M-11-022
03-04-2020
ASHLEY ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. SUEZ WATER MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Defendant.
ORDER
This Order memorializes the Court's ruling at the hearing on February 7, 2020 on Movant's Motion to Quash the Third Party Subpoena and for a Protective Order.
A subpoena was served in Delaware upon Eric M. Doroshow, Esquire, in an out-of-state action, a New Jersey state court action. The underlying out-of-state action is Adams v. SUEZ Water Management Services, Inc., et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. BER-L-2017-17 (the "New Jersey Action").
The New Jersey Action involves issues regarding the advice provided by Attorney Doroshow during his representation of Plaintiff Ashley Adams in a bankruptcy action/proceeding.
Plaintiff Ashley Adams filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena issued to Eric M. Doroshow, Esquire in the New Jersey Action. On December 6, 2019, the New Jersey Court, following a hearing, denied Plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena, and granted Plaintiff's motion for a Protective Order limiting the scope of the subpoena as set forth in that Order. The December 6, 2019 Order in the New Jersey Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Defendant is hereby seeking to enforce that out-of-state subpoena issued in the New Jersey Action in Delaware pursuant to the Delaware Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act, 10 Del. C. § 4311, against the third party, Mr. Doroshow. Mr. Doroshow has filed a motion in this court seeking to quash the subpoena and for a protective order.
Delaware's role in this action is as a conduit. Defendant seeks to obtain discovery from a third-party in Delaware, Mr. Doroshow, for use in the New Jersey Action. The scope of the permissible discovery of the subpoena issued to Mr. Doroshow has already been decided by the New Jersey Court in the New Jersey Action and will be enforced in Delaware in accordance with those terms. See, Greenspon v. Prommis Holdings, LLC, et al., 2017 WL 4856850 (Del.Super. 2017)(the nature and extent of the scope of the discovery in an out-of-state action from a third party located in Delaware is governed by the scope of discovery permitted in that underlying out-of-state action for which the discovery is being sought).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth on the record on February 7, 2020, and for the reasons set forth herein: 1. Movant's Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED. This Court will enforce the subpoena served upon Mr. Doroshow in the New Jersey Action. 2. Movant's Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED on the same terms as set forth in the December 6, 2019 Order in the New Jersey Action which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2020
/s/_________
Commissioner Lynne M. Parker cc: Original to Prothonotary
Keri L. Morris-Johnston, Esquire
Elaina L. Holmes, Esquire
EXHIBIT A
Ronald J. Wronko, Esq.
Attorney ID 019061997
RONALD J. WRONKO, LLC
134 Columbia Turnpike
Florham Park, New Jersey 07932
(973) 360-1001
Attorneys for plaintiff
Ashley Adams ASHLEY ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. SUEZ WATER MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC., GARY PRETTYMAN, JOHN DOES, 1-10, and ABC CORP. 1-10, said names being fictitious, Defendants. NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT BERGEN COUNTY: LAW DIVISION
DOCKET NO. BER-L-2017-17 CIVIL ACTION ORDER QUASHING SUBPOENA ISSUED BY DEFENDANTS TO ERIC DOROSHOW, ESQ.
THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court on Friday, December 6, 2019, on a Notice of Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued by defendants to Eric Doroshow, Esq. by RONALD J. WRONKO LLC, attorneys for plaintiff; and defendants appearing through their counsel; and the Court having read and considered the certifications and other papers filed herein, if any, and having heard and considered the arguments of the parties and for good cause shown;
On this 6th day of December, 2019
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Quash the Subpoena is hereby granted. The Subpoena directed to Eric Doroshow, Esq. is hereby quashed.
2. Any documents produced before the return date of said subpoena are hereby barred from use in the litigation and shall be destroyed.
3. Alternatively, the Court grants plaintiff's motion for Protective Order as follows:
a. The Subpoena shall be modified to Request only of documents containing any communication specifically regarding the inclusion of this LAD action in the bankruptcy petition.
b. Defendant Suez shall pay Eric Doroshow, Esq.'s attorneys' fees and costs for the document production and appearance at deposition.
4. This Order is hereby served via e-courts on all parties.
/s/_________
Hon. WALTER F. SKROD, J.S.C. [Opposed]
[Unopposed] Adams vs Suez L-2017-17 Rider to Order of December 6, 2019 Defendant does not have a license to explore everything related to the bankruptcy petition, or communications related to it, during the deposition of Doroshow and/or the unnamed paralegal. Defendant admits that the requested Doroshow deposition concerns plaintiff's credibility, not the central/substantive issues in the case. Defendant already has a Doroshow sworn statement submitted on his application to be relieved, that he was only recently told about the employment case. Defendant already possesses the necessary facts to argue about plaintiff's credibility, or the lack thereof. The deposition of Doroshow/paralegal is thereby limited to the issue(s) and documents identified in the order. This decision is subject to the application to quash filed in Delaware.