2010 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
OF THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE
ON SPECIAL CIVIL PART PRACTICE
MARCH 12, 2010
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
____________________________________
I. RULE AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION ........... 1
A. Proposed Amendments to Rules 4:17-5 and 4:18-1 – Amendments
Proposed by the Civil Practice Committee That Will Affect
Special Civil Part Practice ................................................................ 1
B. Proposed Amendment to R. 6:4-3(f) - Discovery in Actions
Cognizable But Not Filed in Small Claims ..................................... 8
C. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX VI – NOTICE TO
DEBTOR ..............................................................................................10
D. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO R. 6:2-3(B) – SERVICE OF ORIGINAL
PROCESS IN TENANCY ACTIONS ....................................................... 12
II. RULE AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED ................. 15
A. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO R. 6:3-3 – MOTION PRACTICE .......... 15
B. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO R. 6:6-7 – DOCUMENTATION OF
JUDGMENT SATISFACTION .................................................................16
III. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS – NONE ............................................ 17
IV. LEGISLATION – NONE .......................................................................... 18
ii
V. MATTERS HELD FOR CONSIDERATION ......................................... 19
A. USE OF CREDIT CARDS TO PAY FEES AND POST DEPOSITS ............. 19
B. “SHOTGUN” BANK LEVIES ................................................................ 20
C. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO R. 6:7-2(B)(2) - ELIMINATE
REQUIREMENT OF SERVING DEFENDANT WITH INFORMATION
SUBPOENA BEFORE SERVING BANKS ............................................... 21
VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 22
1
I. RULE AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION
A. Proposed Amendments to Rules 4:17-5 and 4:18-1 – Amendments Proposed
by the Civil Practice Committee That Will Affect Special Civil Part Practice
In its 2010 Report to the Supreme Court, the Civil Practice Committee has proposed
amendments to two rules that will affect practice in the Special Civil Part. The first involves
amending R. 4:17-5 so as to clarify the rule by expressly prohibiting the use of general, nonspecific
objections to interrogatories and requiring that any objections be addressed to specific
questions. The second involves a similar amendment to R. 4:18-1 that would prohibit the use of
general, non-specific objections to requests for the production of documents and require a
certification that all documents relevant to the request were produced. Both rules apply to the
Special Civil Part by virtue of R. 6:4-3(a) and (e). The Special Civil Part Practice Committee
supports the changes proposed by the Civil Practice Committee. The proposed amendments
follow.
2
4:17-5. Objections to Interrogatories
(a) [Objections to Questions; Motions. A party upon whom interrogatories are served
who objects to any questions propounded therein may either answer the question by stating, “The
question is improper” or may, within 20 days after being served with the interrogatories, serve a
notice of motion, to be brought on for hearing at the earliest possible time, to strike any question,
setting out the grounds of objection. The answering party shall make timely answer, however, to
all questions to which no objection is made. Interrogatories not stricken shall be answered
within such unexpired period of the 60 days prescribed by R. 4:17-4(b) as remained when the
notice of motion was served or within such time as the court directs. The propounder of a
question answered by a statement that it is improper may, within 20 days after being served with
the answers, serve a notice of motion to compel an answer to the question, and, if granted, the
question shall be answered within such time as the court directs.]
General Objections. General objections to the interrogatories as a whole are not
permitted and shall be disregarded by the court and adverse parties.
(b) Specific Objections. A party served with interrogatories who objects to any
specific question propounded therein may either state with specificity the ground of objection
and answer the question subject to the stated objection, or, within 20 days after being served with
the interrogatories, serve a notice of motion returnable at the earliest possible time to strike any
question setting forth the grounds of the objection. The answering party shall, however, answer
all questions not objected to as herein provided. The propounder of the question objected to
may, within 20 days after service of the answer, move to strike the objection and compel an
answer. Questions not stricken or to which an answer is compelled shall be answered within the
time fixed by the court.
3
[(b)](c) …no change.
[(c)](d) …no change.
[(d)](e) [Costs and Fees] Award of Expenses on Motion. [If the court finds that a
motion made pursuant to this rule was made frivolously or for the purpose of delay or was
necessitated by action of the adverse party that was frivolous or taken for the purpose of delay,
the court may order the offending party to pay the amount of reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred by the other party in making or resisting the motion.] The provisions of
R. 4:23-1(c) apply to expenses incurred on motions made pursuant to this rule.
Note: Source — R.R. 4:23-8 (first, second, third, fourth and seventh sentences).
Paragraph (c) adopted July 14, 1972 to be effective September 5, 1972; paragraphs (a) and (b)
amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (a) amended, new
paragraph (b) added, former paragraph (b) becomes new paragraph (c), former paragraph (c)
becomes new paragraph (d), and former paragraph (d) becomes new paragraph (e) as amended
to be effective .
4
4:18-1. Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things and
Entry Upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes; Pre-Litigation Discovery
(a) …no change.
(b) Procedure; Continuing Obligation; Failure to Respond; Objections; Motions.
(1) Procedure for Request. The request may, without leave of court, be served on the
plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of the
summons and complaint on that party. A copy of the request shall also be simultaneously served
on all other parties to the action. The request shall set forth the items to be inspected either by
individual item or by category, and describe each item and category with reasonable
particularity. The request shall specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the
inspection and performing the related acts. The request may specify the form or forms in which
electronically stored information is to be produced.
(2) Procedure for Response. The party on whom the request is served shall serve a
written response within 35 days after the service of the request, except that a defendant may
serve a response within 50 days after service of the summons and complaint on that defendant.
On motion, the court may allow a shorter or longer time. The written response[, without
documentation annexed but which shall be made available to all parties on request, shall be
served by the party to whom the request was made on all other parties to the action. The
response shall state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities
will be permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, including an objection to the
requested form or forms for producing electronically stored information, stating the reasons for
objection. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified and
inspection permitted of the remaining parts. If objection is made to the requested form or forms
5
for producing electronically stored information or if no form was specified in the request, the
responding party shall state the form or forms it intends to use. The party submitting the request
may move for an order of dismissal or suppression or an order to compel pursuant to R. 4:23-5
with respect to any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof or
any failure to permit inspection as requested. If a party who has furnished a written response to a
request to produce or who has supplied documents in response to a request to produce thereafter
obtains additional documents that are responsive to the request, an amended written response and
production of such documents, as appropriate, shall be served promptly.] shall be made by the
party upon whom it is served if an individual, or, if a governmental, commercial, or charitable
entity, by an officer or agent thereof. The person making the response shall swear or certify in
the form prescribed by paragraph (c) of this rule that it is complete and accurate based on
personal knowledge and/or upon information if provided by others, whose identity and source of
knowledge shall be disclosed. The written response shall be served on the requesting party and a
copy on all other parties. The written response shall either include the requested documents or
other material or state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities
will be permitted as requested. If the written response provides documents to the requesting
party, those documents shall be provided to or made available to any other party upon request.
Unless the parties otherwise agree, or the court otherwise orders:
[(1)](A) a party who produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they
are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the
categories in the request;
6
[(2)](B) if a request does not specify the form or forms for producing electronically
stored information, a responding party shall produce the information in a form or forms in which
it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable; and
[(3)](C) a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in
more than one form.
(3) Continuing Obligation. If a party who has furnished a written response to a
request to produce or who has supplied documents in response to a request to produce thereafter
obtains additional documents that are responsive to the request, a supplemental written response
and production of such documents, as appropriate, shall be served promptly.
(4) Objections; Failure to Respond; Motions. General objections to the request as a
whole are not permitted and shall be disregarded by the court and adverse parties. The party
upon whom the request is served may, however, object to a request on specific grounds and, if on
the ground of privilege or accessibility of electronically stored information, the objection shall be
made in accordance with R. 4:10-2(e) and (f) respectively. The requesting party may move for
an order of dismissal or suppression or an order to compel pursuant to R. 4:23-5 with respect to
any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof or any failure to
permit inspection as requested. The provisions of R. 4:23-1(c) apply to the award of expenses
incurred in relation to motions made pursuant to this rule.
(c) Certification or Affidavit of Completeness. The person responding to the request
shall submit with the response a certification stating or affidavit averring as follows:
I hereby certify (or aver) that I have reviewed the document production request and that I
have made or caused to be made a good faith search for documents responsive to the request. I
further certify (or aver) that as of this date, to the best of my knowledge and information, the
7
production is complete and accurate based on ( ) my personal knowledge and/or ( ) information
provided by others. The following is a list of the identity and source of knowledge of those who
provided information to me:
(d) Persons Not Parties. This rule does not preclude an independent action against a
person not a party for production of documents and things and permission to enter upon land.
Pre-litigation discovery within the scope of this rule may also be sought by petition pursuant to
R. 4:11-1.
Note: Source — R.R. 4:24-1. Former rule deleted and new R. 4:18-1 adopted July 14,
1972 to be effective September 5, 1972; rule caption and paragraph (c) amended July 14, 1992 to
be effective September 1, 1992; paragraphs (a) and (b) amended July 13, 1994 to be effective
September 1, 1994; paragraph (b) amended July 10, 1998 to be effective September 1, 1998;
paragraph (b) amended July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; paragraph (b) amended
July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; caption and paragraphs (a) and (b) amended
July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006; paragraph (b) amended, new paragraph (c)
added, and former paragraph (c) becomes new paragraph (d) to be effective .
8
B. Proposed Amendment to R. 6:4-3(f) - Discovery in Actions Cognizable But
Not Filed in Small Claims
Rule 6:4-3(a) provides that interrogatories are not permitted in Small Claims, but
members of the Committee reported that some litigants and attorneys have expressed the view,
over the years, that discovery is permitted in Small Claims and they rely on the title to R. 6:4-
3(f), which reads, “Actions Cognizable in Small Claims Section, Discovery.” They insist that
the title of this rule clearly permits discovery in Small Claims and they have quoted Judge
Pressler's comment 2.1 to the rule which says, in relevant part: "In Small Claims Actions,
defined as actions within the monetary limit of the Small Claims Section, whether or not
pending, interrogatories are permitted only as provided by Paragraph (e) of this rule."
The Committee believes that the first sentence of paragraph (a) of the rule clearly excludes
actions filed or pending in the Small Claims Section from the use of interrogatories otherwise
permitted by the rule. It states:
Except as otherwise provided by R. 6:4-3(b) interrogatories may be served pursuant to
the applicable provisions of R. 4:17 in all actions except forcible entry and detainer
actions, summary landlord and tenant actions for the recovery of premises, and actions
commenced or pending in the Small Claims Section.
A minor editing of the title and body of paragraph (f) should remove the cause of any ambiguity
that may currently exist. The proposed amendments follow.
9
6:4-3. Interrogatories; Admissions; Production
(a) ... no change.
(b) ... no change.
(c) ... no change.
(d) ... no change.
(e) ... no change.
(f) Actions Cognizable But Not Pending in Small Claims Section, Discovery. Any
action filed in the Special Civil Part that is cognizable but not pending in the Small Claims
Section [of the Special Civil Part shall] may proceed with [without] discovery, [except that] but
each party is limited to serving [may serve] interrogatories consisting of no more than five
questions without parts. Such interrogatories shall be served and answered within the time limits
set forth in R. 6:4-3(a). Additional interrogatories may be served and enlargements of time to
answer may be granted only by court order on timely notice of motion for good cause shown.
Note: Source – R.R. 7:6-4A (a) (b) (c), 7:6-4B, 7:6-4C. Caption amended and paragraph (c)
adopted July 7, 1971 to be effective September 13, 1971; caption amended, paragraph (a)
amended, and paragraph (d) adopted July 29, 1977 to be effective September 6, 1977; paragraph
(a) amended July 24, 1978 to be effective September 11, 1978; paragraph (e) adopted July 15,
1982 to be effective September 13, 1982; paragraph (e) amended July 22, 1983 to be effective
September 12, 1983; paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) amended November 7, 1988 to be effective
January 2, 1989; paragraph (a) amended, paragraph (b) adopted and former paragraphs (b), (c),
(d) and (e) redesignated as (c), (d), (e) and (f) respectively, June 29, 1990 to be effective
September 4, 1990; paragraph (b) amended August 31, 1990, to be effective September 4, 1990;
paragraphs (b) and (c) amended July 14, 1992 to be effective September 1, 1992; paragraph (c)
caption and text amended, and paragraph (f) amended July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3,
2002; former paragraph (b) deleted and paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) redesignated as paragraphs
(b), (c), (d) and (e), respectively, July 28, 2004, to be effective September 1, 2004; paragraph (b)
amended, new paragraph (c) adopted, and former paragraphs (c), (d), (e) redesignated as
paragraphs (d), (e), (f) July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006; paragraph (a) amended
August 1, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006; paragraph (f) caption and text amended
, 2010 to be effective , 2010.
10
C. Proposed Amendments to Appendix VI – Notice to Debtor
The Special Civil Part Management Committee (composed of the Assistant Civil
Division Managers responsible for supervising the Special Civil Part Clerk's Office in each
county) and the Conference of Civil Division Managers proposed revisions to the Notice to
Debtor set forth in Appendix VI to the court rules. The Notice to Debtor advises the judgmentdebtor
of a levy on assets to satisfy a judgment and the steps that can be taken to contest the levy.
The Special Civil Part Practice Committee agrees with the proposed revisions, which are
intended to provide the debtor with more information in a single document about efforts to
collect the judgment by listing all the bank accounts and/or other items of personal property that
have been levied upon by the Special Civil Part Officer. The current form has space for only one
account or item of property. The levying Officer thus has to mail several different Notices when
levying on multiple accounts, as they often do, and this can be confusing for judgment-debtors.
The revisions would also eliminate, from the Certification of Service, the statement that a copy
has been mailed to the clerk of the court, in keeping with this Committee's proposed amendment
to R. 6:7-1(b), which would eliminate this requirement if approved by the Supreme Court (see
2010 Report of the Supreme Court Committee on Special Civil Part Practice, item I.E. on pages
13-15). Please note that the Notice to Debtor set forth in Appendix VI to the rules applies to
Civil Part actions as well as Special Civil Part actions, by virtue of R. 4:59-1(g). The proposed
amendments to the Notice to Debtor follow.
11
APPENDIX VI. NOTICE TO DEBTOR, (Rules 4:59-1(g) and 6:7-1(b))
Re:
_______________________________________
v.
Superior Court of New Jersey
Law Division, Special Civil Part
____________________County
Docket No: ___________________
Notice to Debtor
To: _______________________________________________, designated defendant:
Your asset, in an amount not to exceed $ _____________ has been levied upon at the instruction of:
_______________________________________to satisfy in whole or in part the judgment against you in the above
matter. Some property may be exempt from execution by Federal and State law, including but not limited to clothing
and a total of $1,000.00 of cash and personal property, except for goods purchased as part of the transaction, which led
to the judgment in this case. In addition, welfare benefits, social security benefits, S.S.I. benefits, V.A. benefits,
unemployment benefits, workers' compensation benefits and child support you receive are exempt, even if the funds
have been deposited in a bank account.
If the levy is against a bank account, the bank has already been notified to place a hold on your account. However,
the funds will not be taken from your account until the court so orders. You may claim your exemption by notifying the
clerk of the court and the person who ordered this levy of your reasons why your property is exempt. This claim must be
in writing and if it is not mailed within 10 days of service of this notice, your property is subject to further proceedings for
execution. The address of the court is: ________________________________________________________.
A Levy has been served on the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The name and address of the person who ordered this levy is:
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I mailed a copy of this notice to the defendant(s) and the person who requested the levy on , 20 , the same
day this levy was made. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if the foregoing
statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
Date: (Signature)
(Court Officer)
[Note: Amended July 14, 1992, effective September 1, 1992; amended July 13, 1994, effective September 1, 1994;
amended July5, 2000, effective September 5, 2000; amended July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006; amended
,2010 to be effective , 2010.]
12
D. Proposed Amendment to R. 6:2-3(b) – Service of Original Process in Tenancy
Actions
The Committee has proposed, in its 2010 Report to the Supreme Court, to amend R. 6:2-
3(b) so as to require personal service of original process (summons and complaint) in tenancy
actions, but permit attachment to the door of the defendant’s unit if the Special Civil Part Officer
is unable to personally deliver it to the defendant or a member of the defendant’s household over
the age of 14 years. This is intended to resolve a perceived discrepancy between the statute and
the court rule governing service of original process in tenancy actions. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-54
provides for service of the summons and complaint by posting in those situations where
admission to the subject premises is refused or no person above the age of 14 is present. Rule
6:2-3(b), on the other hand, currently requires service by mail and by either personal delivery or
posting. In other words, there is no requirement in the rule that the Special Civil Part Officer
first attempt personal service before posting. The Committee noted that, if adopted, this rule
change will require a modification of the Officer’s return of service on the summons and this was
addressed in the next section of the Report.
At a recent meeting of the Committee AOC staff advised the members that comments
expressing serious concerns about the new rule's impact on the Special Civil Part Officers and
court calendars should be expected to be filed with the Supreme Court by the Conference of
Civil Division Managers, the Conference's Special Civil Part Management Committee and the
Committee of Special Civil Part Supervising Judges. The Committee then considered whether
its members wished, at this time, to modify the proposal and decided, by an evenly divided vote
that was broken by the chair, to leave the proposal in its current form. The text of the proposed
amendment to the rule follows.
13
6:2-3. Service of Process
(a) By Whom Served. ... no change.
(b) Manner of Service. Service of process within this State shall be made in accordance
with R. 6:2-3(d) or as otherwise provided by court order consistent with due process of law, or in
accordance with R. 4:4-5. Substituted service within this State shall be made pursuant to R. 6:2-
3(d). Substituted or constructive service outside this State may be made pursuant to the
applicable provisions in R. 4:4-4 or R. 4:4-5.
In summary actions for the recovery of premises [landlord and tenant actions], service of
process shall be by ordinary mail and by [either] delivery personally pursuant to R. 4:4-4. When
the person serving process is unable to effectuate service by delivering process personally,
service may be effectuated [or] by affixing a copy of the summons and complaint on the door of
the unit occupied by the defendant [subject premises]. When the plaintiff-landlord has reason to
believe that service may not be made at the subject premises, the landlord shall also request
service at an address, by certified and regular mail addressed to the tenant, where the landlord
believes that service will be effectuated. The landlord shall furnish to the clerk two additional
copies of the summons and complaint for each defendant for this purpose.
(c) Notice of Service. ... no change.
(d) Service by Mail Program. ... no change.
(e) General Appearance; Acknowledgement of Service. ... no change.
Note: Source--R.R. 7:4-6(a)(b) (first three sentences), 7:4-7. Paragraph (a) amended July 7,
1971 effective September 13, 1971; paragraph (a) amended July 14, 1972 to be effective
September 5, 1972; paragraph (b) amended November 27, 1974 to be effective April 1, 1975;
paragraphs (a)(b) amended July 17, 1975 to be effective September 8, 1975; paragraph (a)
amended July 16, 1979 to be effective September 10, 1979; paragraph (a) amended July 21, 1980
to be effective September 8, 1980; paragraph (b) amended July 16, 1981 to be effective
September 14, 1981; paragraphs (a) and (b) amended and paragraph (d) adopted November 5,
14
1986 to be effective January 1, 1987; paragraph (c) amended November 7, 1988 to be effective
January 2, 1989; paragraphs (b) and (d) amended June 29, 1990 to be effective September 4,
1990; paragraph (d) amended July 17, 1991 to be effective immediately; paragraph (e) adopted
July 14, 1992 to be effective September 1, 1992; paragraphs (a) and (e) amended July 13, 1994
to be effective September 1, 1994; paragraph (d)(4) amended July 5, 2000 to be effective
September 5, 2000; paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (d)(2), and (e) amended July 12, 2002 to be effective
September 3, 2002; paragraphs (b), d(4) and (5) amended July 28, 2004 to be effective
September 1, 2004; paragraph (b) amended__________, 2010 to be effective___________,2010.
15
II. RULE AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
A. Proposed Amendments to R. 6:3-3 – Motion Practice
The Committee considered a letter from a judge in which he discussed two problems with
the current motion practice in the Special Civil Part. The first involved needless motions that are
filed when counsel are careless and, for example, file motions that are moot and he suggested
that provision should be made in the rules for sanctions in these situations. In the second he
suggested that the rules should require the moving party to apprise the court in the moving
papers of any pending trial date or the fact that a date has not been set. The Committee believes
that the provisions of Rules 1:2-4 and 4:6-4(b), the latter of which is applicable to the Special
Civil Part pursuant R. 6:3-1, are sufficient to deal with those instances of procedural impropriety
that are committed by attorneys in the conduct of their cases. The Committee also notes that
because the Special Civil Part is up to date with its trial calendars, it is rare to have an open case
that does not have a trial date. Court staff can discern immediately if there is a trial date and a
variety of mechanisms for apprising the judge of a trial date were discussed. In short, the
Committee did not believe that this additional burden should be imposed on attorneys.
16
B. Proposed Amendment to R. 6:6-7 – Documentation of Judgment Satisfaction
The Committee considered correspondence from a member stating that while N.J.S.A.
2A:16-46 requires the party who receives full satisfaction of a judgment to either file a warrant to
satisfy the judgment or furnish the warrant to the party who made satisfaction, the court rules do
not explicitly require this. The problem could be corrected in Special Civil, he averred, by
adding a provision to R. 6:6-7 to that effect. Rule 6:6-7 provides a mechanism for the party
making satisfaction to obtain a certificate of satisfaction from the Special Civil Part Clerk in
situations where the judgment-creditor has failed to provide a warrant for satisfaction and no
execution issued on the judgment has been returned fully paid. The Committee rejected the
proposal because R. 4:48-1 already requires the party receiving satisfaction to either file a
warrant with the Clerk or provide one to the party making satisfaction, and this rule is applicable
to actions in the Special Civil Part by virtue of R. 6:6-1.
17
III. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS – NONE
18
IV. LEGISLATION – NONE
19
V. MATTERS HELD FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Use of Credit Cards to Pay Fees and Post Deposits
In its 2010 Report to the Supreme Court the Committee endorsed the idea of permitting
the payment of filing fees and posting of deposits by credit card but recognizes that formulation
of the language for the rule change should await completion of the AOC’s work on this project.
Staff informed the Committee that the Information Technology Office, Office of Management
Services and the Civil Practice Division of the Office of Trial Court Services have not yet
completed their work.
20
B. “Shotgun” Bank Levies
The Committee indicated in its 2010 Report to the Supreme Court that it had discussed
and held for further consideration the practice of some Special Civil Part Officers using a
“shotgun” approach by serving copies of writs of execution on a number of banks, not knowing
whether the judgment-debtor in fact has an account at any of them. The Committee stated in the
Report that it had asked for advice from the Conference of Civil Division Managers, the Special
Civil Part Management Committee and the Committee of Special Civil Part Supervising Judges
as to the extent of the practice and the problems, if any, that it raises. After the Committee filed
its 2010 Report it received input from all of these groups and decided that more time is needed to
discuss the subject and formulate recommendations to the Supreme Court.
21
C. Proposed Amendment to R. 6:7-2(b)(2) - Eliminate Requirement of Serving
Defendant With Information Subpoena Before Serving Banks
The Committee also stated in its 2010 Report to the Supreme Court that it was
considering a proposed amendment to R. 6:7-2(b)(2) that would eliminate the requirement,
presently in the rule, of serving a judgment debtor with an information subpoena and getting no
response, before the judgment-creditor can serve an information subpoena on a bank to find out
if the debtor has an account there. The Committee will consider this issue together with the
subject of "shotgun" bank levies.
22
VI. CONCLUSION
The members of the Supreme Court Committee on Special Civil Part Practice appreciate
the opportunity to have served the Supreme Court in this capacity.
Respectfully submitted,
Hon. Joseph R. Rosa, J.S.C., Chair
Mary Braunschweiger, Civ. Div. Mgr.
Felipe Chavana, Esq.
I. Mark Cohen, Esq.
Gregory G. Diebold, Esq.
JoAnn Ezze, Asst. Civ. Div. Mgr.
Gerard J. Felt, Esq.
Eric H. Fields, Court Officer
Lloyd Garner, Esq., Asst. Civ. Div. Mgr.
Joanne Gottesman
Linda G. Hampton, Esq.
Hon. John E. Harrington, J.S.C.
Kennon Jenkins
Hon. Fred H. Kumpf, J.S.C.
Adolfo L. Lopez, Esq.
David G. McMillin, Esq.
Jonathan Mehl, Esq.
Raymond F. Meisenbacher, Jr., Esq.
Hon. David W. Morgan, J.S.C.
Anshu Pathak, Esq.
W. Peter Ragan, Sr., Esq.
Daniel I. Rubin, Esq.
Stephen E. Smith, Esq.
Hon. Jerome M. St. John, J.S.C.
William A. Thompon, II, Esq.
Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
Robert J. Piscopo, AOC Staff
Robert D. Pitt, Esq., AOC Staff
