Wiggins Plastics, Inc. v. Cnty. of Passaic

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court
• Writing for the Court: Hon. Darren J. Del Sardo, P.J. Cv.
• Docket Number: PAS L-2441-22
• Decision Date: 21 November 2025
• Citation: Wiggins Plastics, Inc. v. Cnty. of Passaic, PAS L-2441-22 (N.J. Super. Nov 21, 2025)
• Parties: WIGGINS PLASTICS, INC. and KNICKERBOCKER BED COMPANY, Plaintiff(s), v. COUNTY OF PASSAIC, et al., Defendant(s).

1

WIGGINS PLASTICS, INC. and KNICKERBOCKER BED COMPANY, Plaintiff(s), v. COUNTY OF PASSAIC, et al., Defendant(s).

No. PAS L-2441-22

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic

November 21, 2025

CIVIL ACTION - CBLP

Charles A. Yuen, Esq., of Charles Allen Yuen LLC, counsel for Plaintiffs Wiggins Plastics, Inc. and Knickerbocker Bed Company.

Jerald J. Howarth, Esq., of Howarth &Associates, LLC, counsel for Defendants County of Passaic and Passaic County Board of Commissioners.

Stephen T. Scirocco, Esq., of Scirocco Law, counsel for Defendant Assuncao Brother, Inc.

ORDER

THIS MATTER, having been opened before the Court on discovery disputes concerning Wiggins Plastics, Inc. and Knickerbocker Bed Company (collectively "Plaintiffs") and the County of Passaic, Passaic County Board of Commissioners' (improperly pled as Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders) (collectively "County of Passaic") and Assuncao Brothers (collectively Defendants). Plaintiffs appeal recommendations relating to the Special Adjudicator's October 27, 2025, Report which denied Plaintiffs application for a Protective Order and issued additional discovery recommendations.

IT IS on this 21^th day of November 2025;

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' appeal of the Special Adjudicator's Report dated October 27 2025 is hereby DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs must produce a computation of their damage claims, setting forth each category of their damages as contemplated by R. 4:103-1 (a) (3). The calculations and supporting documents should follow the Rollins identification of categories of damages; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs are not required to include reproduction or identification of any copies of photographs already served on Defendants; and it is further

ORDERED that the production should be made at least three business days before the last date of Polevoy's scheduled depositions; and it is further

ORDERED that if calculations and supporting documents backing up the spreadsheets' calculations are not produced or are not identified by Bates Stamp references to documents already produced, then plaintiffs and their experts should be barred from relying upon the spreadsheets or unproduced or unidentified documents at trial; and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Order be served via e-courts.

OPINION

Hon. Darren J. Del Sardo, P.J. Cv.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Wiggins Plastics, Inc. and Knicker Bed Company, (collectively "Plaintiffs") Appeal of the Special Adjudicator's Recommendations on Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, filed on October 31, 2025. Defendants, County of Passaic, Passaic County Board of Commissioners (collectively "the County") and Assuncao Brothers (collectively Defendants) submitted an Opposition on November 4, 2025. After careful consideration, the Court relies upon the following statement of reasons in support of its decision.

BACKGROUND

This case arose from a bridge replacement project in a County-owned river adjacent to the plaintiff Wiggins' industrial property. The County's general contractor, Assuncao Brothers Inc. ("Assuncao"), allegedly performed construction activities that contributed to severe flooding of the Plaintiff's property during the remnants of Storm Ida on September 1, 2021. The Plaintiff's amended complaint includes a fourth count alleging the County's negligent selection of Assuncao and the denial of safe work.

Plaintiff Wiggins asserts that the County's contractor, Assuncao, demolished the old bridge, modified the riverbank, and constructed a cofferdam that led to the flooding of the Plaintiff's property. Wiggins filed the initial complaint on September 29, 2022, and an Amended Complaint on May 11, 2023, alleging that the County negligently selected Assuncao, whose bid proposal was inadequate and unsafe.

The case was filed as a complex matter under Track 4 which permitted 450 days of discovery. The parties have engaged in ongoing discovery exchanges for approximately 1189 days. Discovery is set to expire on March 31, 2026, and trial is scheduled for May 11, 2026.

The instant application is related to a discovery dispute regarding the Special Adjudicator's^[1] Report dated October 27, 2025. See Special Adjudicator's Report dated October 27, 2025, Exhibit A.

Plaintiffs sought a Protective Order regarding the demand for the production of documents requested by Defendants, to be produced at the deposition of Richard Polevoy, the principal of both Plaintiffs. Defendants' notice of deposition requested Plaintiffs to produce documents relating to Plaintiffs' damage claims caused by the subject flooding.

Plaintiffs argued that they had complied with all discovery request by previously producing the documents demanded by Defendants and argue that it would be overly burdensome to have Plaintiffs segregate documents relating to Plaintiffs' damage claims. Plaintiffs argue that the notice of production violates R. 4:18-1, the Court's July 31, 2025 deadline for production of documents, the policy against the production of attorney work product and the prohibition against requiring unduly burdensome production of documents.

The application was opposed by Defendants. Defendants argued that the production of documents that support Plaintiffs' damages is warranted because of the voluminous production of documents. Defendants demand that Plaintiffs identify the documents that support their spreadsheet summaries of damages in excess of eleven million dollars.

The Special Adjudicator considered submissions and oral arguments before making the recommendation on Plaintiffs' application for a Protective Order.

Plaintiffs now move to directly appeal Garry S. Rothstadt, J.A.D. (Ret.) Special Adjudicator'srecommendations number(s) 1, 3, 5, and 6 on his report dated October 27, 2025.

Defendants argue that the documents relating to the Protective Order were appropriately denied on procedural and substantive grounds. Defendants assert that said documents were sought for years. Defendants contend that the damages claim categories were established by Plaintiffs' expert, the Rollins accounting firm. Therefore, according to Defendants, their request for the relevant documents is not duplicative, as the documents previously produced do not correspond to or address the specific categories created by Rollins. Accordingly, Defendants seek production of documents responsive to the Rollins-created categories, which have not been provided.

During oral argument, Defendant County of Passaic highlighted that the manner in which Plaintiffs produced documents precludes Defendants' substantive review of the damage claims.

Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs' application for a Protective Order was deficient as they failed to provide a certification by an individual with personal knowledge and no proof in support of Plaintiffs' claim of responsive documents. Defendants assert they provided examples to the Special Adjudicator to establish the Plaintiffs' massive document drop. Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate "good cause" under R. 4: 10-3.

The Special Adjudicator held that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to preclude the production of the subject documents. The recommendation revealed that during oral arguments, Plaintiffs' Counsel stated that initial disclosures under R. 4:103-1(a) (3)^[2] were never made because this action was not originally filed under CBLP. The Special Adjudicator noted that even though Plaintiffs' Reply Brief attached as exhibits four documents relating to Plaintiffs' damages, the CBLP rules are not satisfied as each calculation requires proofs to substantiate the alleged damage.

Furthermore, the recommendation held that Plaintiffs work product argument and the deadline from expiration of the deadline production is without merit. In sum, the overall recommendation was to deny the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order. See Exhibit A.

DECISION

The Court affirms the Special Adjudicator's recommendation dated October 27, 2025, as the recommendation was properly determined. The Court has thoroughly reviewed and independently analyzed the recommendations and hereby affirms the Special Adjudicator's recommendations. In addition the Court reviewed the record made at oral argument before the Special Adjudicator.

The Special Adjudicator issued six (6) recommendations relating to the Plaintiffs' request for Protective Order. Plaintiffs dispute three (3) of the recommendations which are all related to the denial of the Protective Order. The disputed recommendations are as follows: (1) Plaintiffs should be Ordered to produce a computation of their damages, (2) Plaintiffs should be Ordered production to be made at least three business days before the before the last date of the Polevoy's scheduled depositions, and (3) Plaintiffs and their experts should be barred from relying upon the spreadsheets or unproduced or unidentified documents at trial.

R. 4:10-3 provides that the court, on a finding of good cause, may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense on motion by a party or person from whom discovery is sought. In determining whether good cause exists, the Court should consider the nature of the lawsuit and the issues raised by the pleadings, the substantive law likely to be applied in the resolution of the issues raised by the pleadings, whether the parties seeking discovery already have the materials sought, and the burden or expense to the parties seeking the protective order. See Catalpa Inv. Group, Inc. v. Franklin Twp. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 254 N.J.Super. 270, 237-74 (Law. Div. 1991).

...