MALHAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 2:16-cv-08495

Background

Plaintiffs (Malhan and Spaceage Consulting) sue multiple New Jersey entities and officials, including Attorney General Grewal and Superior Court Judges, over state child‑support garnishments, alleged improper disclosure of financial information, failures to adjust orders, and alleged retaliation.
Plaintiffs’ counsel and a process server attempted in person service at Judge David B. Katz’s home on July 27, 2020 despite prior defense counsel offering to accept service; the State Police interviewed Plaintiff’s counsel shortly thereafter.
On July 28, 2020 Plaintiffs served a subpoena on the Livingston Police Department seeking records and 911/dispatch/radio recordings of any contact between Judge Katz (David Katz) and the Livingston PD on July 27, 2020.
The Judiciary‑Related Defendants moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it sought information about a judge’s safety/security that is unrelated to the garnishment/economic claims and that no responsive records likely exist; they also sought a clear ruling that similar subpoenas are impermissible.
Plaintiffs opposed, arguing Judge Katz lacked standing to quash, the material was relevant to alleged retaliation/bias, and that the subpoena should be moot if there are no responsive documents.
The magistrate judge granted the motion to quash (Nov. 2, 2020), finding Judge Katz had standing, the subpoena was not relevant to the claims, judicial immunity bars the type of bias claim Plaintiffs suggested, and discovery against the judges is stayed pending resolution of their motion to dismiss on immunity grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to move to quash	Judge Katz lacks standing; subpoena to third party moot if no records	Judge Katz has a personal interest in communications about his safety/home and may assert privilege/protective interests	Judge Katz has standing to move to quash based on personal interest in safety/privacy
Relevance of subpoena under Rules 26/45	Subpoena relevant to alleged retaliation and bias	Subpoena seeks communications about service at judge’s home unrelated to garnishment/economic claims	Subpoena is not relevant to the subject matter and may not lead to admissible evidence
Security/privacy and impropriety of seeking judge’s contact with police	Plaintiffs say records show retaliation/bias	Defendants assert it concerns judicial safety/home security and is improper discovery	Court deems such inquiries impermissible here and notes security concerns; quashes subpoena
Discovery while immunity motion pending	Plaintiffs sought records regardless	Defendants had moved to dismiss on absolute judicial immunity grounds	Discovery against judges is stayed pending resolution of immunity motion

Key Cases Cited

First Sealord Sur. v. Dunkin & Devires Ins. Agency, 918 F. Supp. 2d 362 (E.D. Pa.) (courts may quash subpoenas when discovery is irrelevant or oppressive)
Pacini v. Macy’s, 193 F.3d 766 (3d Cir.) (federal rules allow broad and liberal discovery)
Nestle Food Corp. v. Aetna Cos. & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101 (D.N.J.) (relevance is broader at discovery than at trial)
Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57 (3d Cir.) (discovery need not produce admissible evidence if reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence)
Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154 (D.N.J.) (party seeking discovery bears burden to show relevance)
Capogrosso v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 588 F.3d 180 (3d Cir.) (doctrine of judicial immunity limits certain suits against judges)
Malhan v. Secretary, United States Department of State, 938 F.3d 453 (3d Cir.) (background precedent on related litigation by the same plaintiff)