Does NJ have discovery privileges similar to CA's "privacy privilege" (see www.pasternaklaw.com/documents/AndYourCase-InDiscovery.pdf at 11-12)?
Is there similar case law in NJ to the Hunter Tylo case law analysis (on p. 11-12 of article at above link) regarding privacy rights and “narrow construing” of concept of waiver for only “directly relevant” info?
See p. 12 of article (at above link) where CA’s App. Div. ruled:
“Petitioner has tendered psychological condition in this litigation only as it relates to termination of the employment contract. Therefore discovery is limited to those injuries resulting from termination of the contract...parties must demonstrate there is a nexus between damages from termination and those which arise out of the marital relationship. Parties have failed to do either.”
Is this similar to the NJ Supreme Court’s Holding in Kinsella v Kinsella:
“In NJ, courts rely on the Kozlov three-part test to limit the waiver in scope to that which is necessary to serve the public interest according to the facts of the case... John's factual allegations have not created a need for the evidence at issue; the evidence sought is not relevant or material to any legal issue before the court; and less intrusive means are available for obtaining evidence to defend the extreme cruelty claim.”