Gensollen v. Pareja
416 N.J. Super. 585
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2010Background
- Gensollen sued Pareja, Costa, Central Orthopedic Associates, and Dr. Gerson in a personal injury action in the NJ Appellate Division.
- Plaintiff served a deposition notice for Dr. Gerson seeking extensive financial and practice-history information.
- Dr. Gerson testified to IMEs per week and defense-oriented billing, but not exact percentages beyond 'well over 95%'.
- Trial court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and imposed burdensome compilation of past IME records.
- Gerson moved for reconsideration; appellate court reversed, holding discovery should stop at reasonable, proportional information and not require nonexistent or excessive data.
- Court notes privacy, burden concerns, and the need to avoid chilling effects on expert participation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in ordering expansive discovery | Plaintiff seeks precise, post hoc data showing bias. | Gerson argues burdensome, invasive, and unnecessary. | Yes, abuse; limited discovery appropriate. |
| Scope of permissible inquiry into expert bias | General financials and defense/PL work suffice to show bias. | Exact percentages and exhaustive data unnecessary. | General, non-exhaustive disclosure suffices; no further production required. |
| Privacy and burden concerns in expert discovery | Disclosure of finances is essential to trial fairness. | Privacy rights and undue burden justify limits. | Courts should narrow scope to avoid harassment and burdens. |
| Whether Elkins/Berrie framework governs this case | Discovery should uncover positional bias. | Standard privacy and proportionality controls apply. | Governing principles support limiting further discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. 274 (Ch.Div.1983) (discovery from experts is not unlimited; privacy considerations apply)
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (excessive discovery could chill expert participation)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (Supreme Court) (limits on discovery to prevent oppression and harassment)