VICTOR LOURO VS. FELIPE PEDROSOÂ (L-5717-12, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0826-15T2

Background

Plaintiffs (Victor and Jennifer Louro) obtained a jury verdict and a January 8, 2014 judgment for unpaid rent against Pedroso Law Firm, P.C. and Pedroso Legal Services, L.L.C. for $21,673.15.
Plaintiffs served an information subpoena post-judgment; bank-account inquiry showed $0 balance.
Plaintiffs moved (Aug 4, 2015) to compel a post-judgment deposition of Filipe Pedroso (principal) and production of 2012–2014 tax returns, bank statements, and financial records, and sought attorneys’ fees.
Trial court ordered Pedroso to attend the deposition and produce documents (Aug 21, 2015) and later awarded $925 in attorneys’ fees (Sept 10 and Oct 9, 2015).
Defendants sought a protective order and in camera review of tax returns; the court denied the protective order but included handwritten notes stating “no privilege” and “no ‘good cause,’” creating an apparent inconsistency.
On appeal the Appellate Division affirmed fee awards and the production orders in part, remanded for clarification on the in camera/protective-order denial, and remanded to correct orders that had been entered against Pedroso individually (rather than only against the corporate defendants).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should compel production of tax returns and other financial records post-judgment	Plaintiffs: tax returns and financials needed to locate assets and enforce judgment; information subpoena noncompliance justified deposition and production	Defendants: tax returns are confidential; asked for in camera review before disclosure; asserted lack of prior notice for deposition-related fees	Court: compelled deposition and production; remanded to clarify denial of protective order/in camera review because trial court’s handwritten reasons were ambiguous
Whether plaintiffs had to request a deposition before moving to compel one	Plaintiffs: motion was proper under post-judgment execution procedures and information-subpoena noncompliance	Defendants: failure to request deposition first under discovery rules undermines fee award	Court: no prior request required in post-judgment context; motion was proper and fee award appropriate
Whether attorneys’ fees for the motion were properly awarded	Plaintiffs: Rule 1:10-3 and execution rules authorize fee awards to a prevailing movant in execution proceedings	Defendants: fees improper because no discovery order was violated and plaintiffs gave no deposition notice	Court: fee award was within discretion under Rules 6:7-2 and 4:59-1(f); affirmed fee award
Whether orders improperly named Pedroso individually	Plaintiffs: Pedroso obstructed discovery and should be held personally responsible	Defendants: judgment and post-judgment proceedings applied to corporate defendants, not Pedroso personally	Court: judgment originally against corporate firms; orders should not have been entered against Pedroso individually; remanded to correct defendants named in orders

Key Cases Cited

Finnegan v. Coll, 59 N.J. Super. 353 (Law Div. 1960) (tax returns are not technically privileged)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (individual interest in keeping tax records confidential)
De Graaff v. De Graaff, 163 N.J. Super. 578 (App. Div. 1978) (tax returns may be inspected for good cause; in camera review required before disclosure)
Ullmann v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 87 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1965) (judge should examine returns in camera in all but clearest cases)
Baxt v. Liloia, 155 N.J. 190 (1998) (attorney misconduct may support sanctions against counsel)