JACQUELINE JALIL VS. PILGRIM MEDICAL CENTERET AL. (L-7913-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2906-15T4

Plaintiffs (Jalil, Rojas, Mena) sued Pilgrim Medical Center and Dr. Campanella under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; defendants answered and discovery followed.
Defendants repeatedly failed to timely and adequately respond to interrogatories and document requests; plaintiffs sent deficiency letters and filed motions to compel and to suppress the answer.
After new counsel appeared for defendants, the court ordered defendants to provide specific document responses by a date certain; defendants ignored the order.
Plaintiffs moved to suppress the answer with prejudice under Rule 4:23-2(b); defendants did not oppose and the court entered suppression with prejudice and later held a default proof hearing at which defendants did not appear.
Final default judgment was entered, plaintiffs pursued supplementary proceedings and information subpoenas, and defendants still failed to comply.
Defendants moved under Rule 4:50-1 to vacate the default judgment, quash subpoenas, reinstate the answer, and reopen discovery; the trial court denied relief and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the default judgment should be vacated under Rule 4:50-1	Default should stand because defendants repeatedly ignored discovery orders and did not appear	Defendants sought relief under Rule 4:50-1 asserting excusable neglect and meritorious defenses	Denied: defendants failed to show excusable neglect or a meritorious defense; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether suppression-with-prejudice procedure under Rule 4:23-5 was bypassed	Plaintiffs properly moved to suppress with prejudice after defendants ignored the compel order	Defendants contend plaintiffs circumvented the two-step suppression process and moved prematurely	Not reached in detail on appeal (argument untimely and without sufficient merit)
Whether failure to respond to information subpoenas justified vacatur under Rule 4:50-1(f)	Plaintiffs argued enforcement of litigant rights and maintenance of judgment finality	Defendants argued exceptional circumstances justified vacatur under "any other reason" clause	Denied: conduct did not constitute exceptional circumstances; finality of judgment outweighs defendants' failures
Whether attorney neglect was excusable	Plaintiffs maintained attorney neglect was inexcusable and not an honest, diligent mistake	Defendants attributed failures to counsel and sought relief for excusable neglect	Denied: attorney carelessness was not excusable neglect compatible with due diligence

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Russo, 429 N.J. Super. 91 (App. Div. 2012) (standard of review for vacating default judgment is abuse of discretion)
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (2012) (vacatur requires excusable neglect and meritorious defense)
Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 N.J. 6 (2008) (abuse of discretion review and standards)
Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (describes when a decision constitutes abuse of discretion)
Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (2002) (framework for reviewing discretionary decisions)
Baumann v. Marinaro, 95 N.J. 380 (1984) (attorney carelessness is not excusable neglect absent an honest mistake compatible with due diligence)
Quagliato v. Bodner, 115 N.J. Super. 133 (App. Div. 1971) (examples where attorney lapse did not constitute excusable neglect)
Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274 (1994) (Rule 4:50-1(f) relief reserved for truly exceptional circumstances)