AIELLOS v. ZISA, 09-2663 (WJM) (2012)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20120120845
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2012
Summary: MARK FALK, Magistrate Judge. THESE MATTERS having come before the Court for a case management conference on January 12, 2012; and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel with respect to Defendant Bergen County Prosecutor's Office's motion to quash and/or for protective order [Docket 10-2349; CM/ECF No. 57]; and the Court having carefully considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion; and for the reasons set forth on the record, which are incorporated her
Summary: MARK FALK, Magistrate Judge. THESE MATTERS having come before the Court for a case management conference on January 12, 2012; and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel with respect to Defendant Bergen County Prosecutor's Office's motion to quash and/or for protective order [Docket 10-2349; CM/ECF No. 57]; and the Court having carefully considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion; and for the reasons set forth on the record, which are incorporated here..
More
MARK FALK, Magistrate Judge.
THESE MATTERS having come before the Court for a case management conference on January 12, 2012; and the Court having heard the arguments of counsel with respect to Defendant Bergen County Prosecutor's Office's motion to quash and/or for protective order [Docket 10-2349; CM/ECF No. 57]; and the Court having carefully considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion; and for the reasons set forth on the record, which are incorporated herein at length; and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this 18th day of January 2012,
ORDERED that:
1. The Bergen County Prosecutor's motion to quash and/or for a protective order [Docket 10-2349; CM/ECF No. 57] is GRANTED in the following way. The December 10, 2010 Consent Order entered by the Undersigned in all of these consolidated actions [e.g., Docket 10-2349; CM/ECF No. 81] is amended so that Paragraphs 1-5 now state the following:
Paragraph 1. In the matters of Aiellos, et al. v. Chief C. Kenneth Zisa, et al., Borntrager, et al v. Chief C. Kenneth Zisa, et al., Finley, et al. v. Chief C. Kenneth Zisa, et al., Campos, et al. v. Chief C. Kenneth Zisa, et al., and Herrmann, et al. v. Chief C. Kenneth Zisa, et al., no party will seek discovery, including third-party discovery and/or asking questions at depositions, related to any specific criminal charges pending against any Defendants, including, but not limited to, C. Kenneth Zisa ("Zisa") and Danilo Garcia ("Garcia"); and it is further
Paragraph 2. ORDERED that in the above matters, no party will seek discovery, including third-party discovery and/or asking questions at depositions, related to the 2008 insurance fraud and 2004 theft incidents referred to in the Campos and Herrmann Complaints; and it is further
Paragraph 3. ORDERED that the above limitations do not bar any party from seeking discovery regarding these matters after the above-referenced criminal proceedings have been disposed of at the trial level; however, Defendants retain and reserve all rights to object to the disclosure of any discovery; and it is further
Paragraph 4. ORDERED that in the matter of Ferraioli, et al v. City of Hackensack Police Department, et al., no party will seek discovery, including third-party discovery and/or asking questions at depositions, related to any criminal charges pending against any Defendants, including, but not limited to, C. Kenneth Zisa ("Zisa") and Danilo Garcia ("Garcia") or the 2008 insurance fraud and 2004 theft incidents referred to in the Campos and Herrmann Complaints; and it is further
Paragraph 5. ORDERED that the above limitations do not bar any party in the Ferraioli matter from seeking discovery regarding these matters after the above-referenced criminal proceedings have been disposed of at the trial level; however, Defendants retain and reserve all rights to object to the disclosure of any discovery;
2. The remainder of the December 10, 2010 Consent Order shall remain in full force and effect.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
