In Kronfeld v. Malone, No. A-2044-23, (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., October 1, 2025), the Appellate Court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal standard to apply when ruling on motions to extend discovery in cases where a trial or arbitration date has already been set.
In Kronfeld, the Appellant, Korenfeld, originally filed a legal malpractice action against the Appellants, Elliot Malone, Esq. and the Law Offices of Elliot Malone, Esq., LLC., and filed an appeal from a July 7, 2023, order denying her eighth motion to extend discovery, an August 4, 2023 order denying her motion for reconsideration of that order, and a September 22, 2023 order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellants.
During the seventh request for an extension of discovery, in March 2023, Appellant argued that she needed an extension because the discovery was extensive and her attorney had an absence for medical treatment. The Civil Presiding Judge granted the request but, while permitting the final extension, he cautioned counsel that “if it do[es not] happen, do[ not] come back” and ordered “[d]epositions of the parties to be completed by April 6, 2023; . . . [p]laintiff’s expert reports be served by May 4, 2023; [Malone’s] expert reports be served by June 5, 2023; [and] [e]xpert depositions [be] completed by June 20, 2023.” The trial date was adjourned to September 18, 2023.
On June 21, 2023, one day after the discovery deadline expired, Appellant filed her eighth motion to extend discovery, wherein she cited her primary counsel’s health issues, the impact of COVID-19, and the case’s complexity as “exceptional circumstances” warranting an extension. Appellant also argued that the seventh order did not clearly establish a discovery end date. After oral argument, the Court denied Appellant’s discovery extension. Thereafter, the Appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that was granted.
A trial court’s discovery rulings are “entitled to substantial deference.” DiFiore v. Pezic, 254 N.J. 212, 228 (2023) (citing State v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582, 593 (2016)). We “generally defer to a trial court’s disposition of discovery matters unless the court has abused its discretion[,] or its determination is based on a mistaken understanding of the applicable law.” Rivers v. LSC P’ship, 378 N.J. Super. 68, 80 (App. Div. 2005) (citing Payton v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 559 (1997)).
Rule 4:24-1(c) provides a motion to extend discovery “shall . . . be made returnable prior to the conclusion of the applicable discovery period” and “if good cause is . . . shown, the court shall enter an order extending discovery.” However, “[n]o extension of the discovery period may be permitted after an arbitration or trial date is fixed, unless exceptional circumstances are shown.” As expressly set forth in Rule 4:24-1(c), because a trial date was fixed, no extension of the discovery end date was permitted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. Under the exceptional circumstances standard, the movant must demonstrate:
(1) why discovery has not been completed within time and counsel’s diligence in pursuing discovery during that time; (2) the additional discovery or disclosure sought is essential; (3) an explanation for counsel’s failure to request an extension of the time for discovery within the original time period; and (4) the circumstances presented were clearly beyond the control of the attorney and litigant seeking the extension of time. [Hollywood Café, 473 N.J. Super. at 217 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Rivers, 378 N.J. Super. at 79).
The Appellate Court found that the trial court judge correctly determined that the party seeking the case deadline (and specifically, the discovery deadline) extension is obligated to show “exceptional circumstances” in support of her eighth motion to extend discovery, and here Appellant failed to do so because the judge properly considered the relevant factors and determined plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances in the seventh order.
The Kornfeld decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Michala Petersen, Esquire and/or Conrad Benedetto, Esquire
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.