On February 12, 1951, the Supreme Court decided Lang v. Morgan’s Home Equipment Corp., 6 N.J. 333 (1951). The Court’s unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Vanderbilt, appears to be the first decision from the Court relating to principles of sanctions for discovery violations.
Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, but the Supreme Court certified the appeal for the Court’s own consideration, as the Court did somewhat frequently in the years immediately following the adoption of the 1947 Constitution.
However, the Court cautioned that “[t]he dismissal of a party's cause of action, with prejudice, is drastic and is generally not to be invoked except in those cases where the order for discovery goes to the very foundation of the cause of action, or where the refusal to comply is deliberate and contumacious. [Citations to an Appellate Division and a Sixth Circuit case omitted]. Where the circumstances are less aggravated the court should give the offending party another opportunity at a short day to comply with the order.”
Ultimately, the Court deferred to the trial court’s finding that defendant’s conduct had not been contumacious. “Since the court below expressly stated that the defendant’s conduct was not contumacious, we are inclined to the view that the penalty imposed was more severe than necessary and that a further opportunity to comply should have been granted before suppressing its counterclaim.”
But lest anyone have misunderstood, the Chief Justice closed by saying “it is apparent that the defendant has not complied with the spirit of the new rules with respect to discovery whereas almost all of the litigants in our courts and their counsel have. Dilatory and obstructive tactics are not to be tolerated in preparation for trial any more than they would be at the trial itself. They are as dangerous as they are futile.” These are still words to live by.