PASQUALE FALCETTI, JR. VS. WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR (L-4916-14, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2912-16T2

Background

Falcetti sued the Waterfront Commission alleging wrongful delay in investigating his eligibility to work as a longshoreman, seeking the Commission's investigatory file in discovery.
The Commission produced 606 pages but withheld 194 documents as protected by the law enforcement investigatory privilege; 31 of those were also asserted as attorney work product.
The trial court initially ordered production without detailed findings; this court remanded and instructed the trial court to conduct an in camera review and provide document‑specific findings explaining any privilege rulings.
On remand the trial court reviewed the documents and issued a chart grouping the 194 items into seven categories and concluded none were privileged, but its explanations were largely conclusory and many documents were not separately identified or analyzed.
The Appellate Division held the trial court’s post‑remand order inadequate because it failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law tied to the evidentiary record and failed to explain its document‑by‑document privilege determinations; the court vacated the order and remanded for proper findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of the law enforcement investigatory privilege to the 194 documents	Falcetti argued the documents were relevant to his delay theory and should be produced.	Waterfront Commission argued the materials are protected investigatory files and confidentiality is required to protect techniques, sources, and ongoing processes.	Trial court ordered disclosure but appellate court vacated for inadequate findings and remanded for document‑specific analysis under the Nero balancing test.
Applicability of attorney work product protection to 31 documents	Falcetti contended those documents were discoverable given his need for the materials.	Commission asserted work product protection and that disclosure would reveal mental impressions and internal legal strategy.	Trial court found substantial need and ordered production; appellate court declined to decide on the merits and remanded for proper fact‑based findings.
Sufficiency of trial court’s in camera review and reasoning	Falcetti relied on trial court’s general determination that documents were not privileged.	Commission argued the court failed to meaningfully assess privilege and balance interests as required.	Appellate court held the trial court’s reasons were conclusory, not tied to the record, and failed to explain rulings for each document or category; vacated and remanded.
Plaintiff’s asserted compelling/substantial need for the withheld materials	Falcetti asserted relevance to his delay claim; minimal certifications referenced few documents.	Commission argued plaintiff failed to show compelling need for the entire investigatory file and that secrecy interests prevail for many items.	Appellate court noted the record lacked evidence of compelling need for most documents; remanded for the trial court to evaluate plaintiff’s need item by item.

Key Cases Cited

Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213 (N.J. 1978) (establishes balancing test for law enforcement investigatory privilege)
Piniero v. N.J. Div. of State Police, 404 N.J. Super. 194 (App. Div. 2008) (applies investigatory privilege balancing principles)
Payton v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524 (1997) (trial courts must provide findings of fact and conclusions of law)
Seacoast Builders Corp. v. Rutgers, 358 N.J. Super. 524 (App. Div. 2003) (requires individual document review and explanation when ruling on privilege)