A New Jersey Superior Court judge has ordered the Township of Edison to produce Mayor Joshi and a properly prepared corporate designee for depositions in a lawsuit concerning the purchase of the property. The court found that Edison’s initial representative, Business Administrator Sonia Alves-Vivieros lacked the necessary knowledge to testify on behalf of the Township.
The plaintiff, JVS Industrial & Commercial Contractors filed a motion to compel after Sonia Alves-Vivieros repeatedly responded “I don’t know” to questions about the Township’s knowledge regarding the property purchasde as if she was pleading the fifth amendment. Judge Lisa M Vignuolo ruled that Edison failed to meet its obligation under Rule 4:14-2(c) to provide a representative with knowledge of the topics identified in the deposition notice, either through personal knowledge or information reasonably available to the township.
The court also granted the plaintiff’s request to depose Mayor Joshi, who was directly involved in the property purchase and negotiations and signed the relevant agreements. The judge cited the mayor’s “first-hand knowledge” and “direct involvement” in the events as justification for compelling his deposition. Mayor Joshi will be asked to answer questions in regards to the documents he signed related to the purchase of the Property, the obligations of Edison in the purchase agreement and his involvement in the communications with 41 Glendale.
While denying the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Edison, the court granted a motion by defendants Glendale Stalwart to compel the depositions of two individuals, Michael Veisz and Doug Yago, associated with the plaintiff. Despite Glendale Stalwart’s failure to formally serve deposition notices, the court found that the plaintiff was aware of and had agreed to the depositions.
This case highlights the importance of proper preparation for depositions, especially for governmental entities. Rule 4:14-2(c) places a clear obligation on organizations to designate knowledgeable individuals who can testify on their behalf. Failure to do so can result in court orders compelling further depositions and potentially adverse rulings.
