ALFRED LAWSON VS. OFFICER JEFF DEWAR (L-8788-20, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
468 N.J. Super. 128
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2021Background
- Plaintiff sued Borough of Bound Brook and police officers in Oct. 2017 alleging he was beaten (sometimes while handcuffed) during a 2015 arrest.
- Discovery extended repeatedly; at a May 14, 2020 Somerset vicinage order the judge: denied turnover of use-of-force reports (citing a protective order), denied leave to amend (due to undue delay), and barred nonparty witness Nestor Crespo from testifying for failing to appear at a subpoenaed deposition (citing Rule 4:23-2).
- Plaintiff moved for reconsideration in June 2020; venue later transferred twice and the motion remained pending during the delay.
- A Middlesex County judge heard the motion on Feb. 19, 2021 and denied all relief, applying the Cummings/Rule 4:49-2 standard and deferring heavily to the Somerset judge.
- Plaintiff sought leave to appeal the interlocutory denial; this Court granted leave, vacated the Feb. 19, 2021 order, and remanded because the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard for interlocutory reconsideration.
- The Court directed the trial judge to re-evaluate (1) the reconsideration request under Rule 4:42-2, (2) the propriety of barring Crespo’s testimony (noting Rule 1:9-5 and contempt/compulsion remedies), and (3) whether delay concerns still justified denying discovery or amendment in light of venue changes and COVID-related trial delays.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for reconsideration of interlocutory orders | Reconsideration governed by Rule 4:42-2; court may revise interlocutory orders in the interest of justice | Plaintiff should have to meet the stricter Rule 4:49-2/Cummings "palpably incorrect" standard | Use Rule 4:42-2 (sound discretion/interest of justice); Cummings/Rule 4:49-2 inapplicable to interlocutory orders |
| Deference to prior judge / law-of-the-case for interlocutory rulings | A new judge may reconsider interlocutory rulings in the interests of the case | Prior judge’s interlocutory rulings are entitled to deference and should stand absent new evidence or clear error | Interlocutory rulings are not law of the case; respect is due but not binding deference; new judge may correct errors to serve case management |
| Bar on Crespo’s testimony for failure to appear at deposition | Order barring Crespo was improper; motion to compel and contempt procedures should be used to secure compliance | Prior order barring testimony was appropriate sanction for noncompliance | Somerset judge erred relying on Rule 4:23-2; Rule 1:9-5 governs nonparty subpoena failures and court should seek to compel compliance (contempt/other coercive measures) before permanently excluding testimony |
| Denial of discovery amendment due to delay | Delay justification has been undercut by venue transfers and COVID-related trial suspensions; additional discovery or amendment may not further delay trial | Granting relief would cause undue delay and prejudice defendants | Trial judge must reweigh delay/prejudice now (post-venue transfer and pandemic delays) when exercising discretion under Rule 4:42-2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 (N.J. 2011) (describing limits of law-of-the-case and when prior rulings bind coequal courts)
- Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 1996) (articulating the "palpably incorrect" standard used for final-order reconsideration)
- Johnson v. Cyklop Strapping Corp., 220 N.J. Super. 250 (App. Div. 1987) (Rule 4:49-2 applies only to final judgments/orders)
- Ford v. Weisman, 188 N.J. Super. 614 (App. Div. 1983) (trial court retains plenary power to modify interlocutory orders before final judgment)
- State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266 (N.J. 2015) (discussion of law-of-the-case doctrine)
- John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1922) (recognizing trial courts’ inherent power to modify interlocutory orders before final decree)
- Catena v. Seidl, 65 N.J. 257 (N.J. 1974) (contempt and coercive measures to secure subpoena compliance)
- Graham v. Gielchinsky, 126 N.J. 361 (N.J. 1991) (court’s interest in truth may require revisiting witness exclusion to avoid excluding relevant evidence)