In Kronfeld v. Malone, the New Jersey Appellate Division reaffirmed the judiciary's firm stance on discovery management and procedural compliance. The plaintiff, Natalia Kronfeld, pursued a series of legal malpractice actions – first against her former divorce attorneys, and later against the attorney who represented her in the malpractice suit. After nearly 1,300 days of discovery and eight separate motions for extensions, the trial court drew a line by denying further discovery and ultimately granting summary judgment to the defense.
On appeal, the court clarified the limits of Hollywood Café Inc. v. Jaffe, 473 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 2022), underscoring that once a trial date is set by judicial order, the "exceptional circumstances" standard under Rule 4:24-1(c) governs any subsequent extension requests. The court also affirmed summary judgment, finding the plaintiff's procedural missteps, failure to produce timely expert testimony, and lack of admissible evidence fatal to her claims.
Background of the Case
The dispute in Kronfeld v. Malone arose from a long procedural history spanning multiple underlying cases. Plaintiff Natalia Kronfeld first retained the law firm Synder & Sarno, LLC, in a 2012 divorce action brought by her ex-husband. On the eve of trial in 2015, the parties reached a settlement that was placed on the record after the court confirmed that Kronfeld understood and accepted the terms. When Kronfeld later refused to pay Sarno's legal fees, Sarno successfully moved for full payment following a multi-day hearing. The judge rejected Kronfeld's claim that she did not understand English and found her testimony was not credible. The Appellate Division affirmed.
In 2016, while Sarno's fee application was pending, Kronfeld filed a legal malpractice action against the firm, alleging it had failed to investigate and value her ex-husband's business interests before the divorce settlement. After her original attorney changed firms, she retained Malone, who filed an amended complaint expanding these claims. Mediation followed in 2018, during which Kronfeld, represented by Malone, agreed to settle her malpractice case with Sarno.
In July 2019, Kronfeld filed a new lawsuit against Malone and his firm, claiming he mishandled the prior malpractice case. She alleged that Malone failed to pursue discovery into her ex-husband's alleged sale of his company to Google, neglected to correct an expert's omission in a business valuation report, failed to advise her of tax consequences, and improperly authorized payment to Sarno.
Serial Discovery Extensions and Denial of the Eight Request
The litigation was subject to repeated discovery extensions. Between October 2020 and February 2023, the trial court granted seven separate motions extending discovery, resulting in over 1,300 days of discovery. The court's March 2023 order, extending discovery for the seventh and final time, explicitly warned counsel not to return for further extensions. Nonetheless, on June 21, 2023, after the discovery end date had expired, Kronfeld moved for an eighth extension, again citing her attorney's medical issues, COVID-19 delays, and case complexity as "exceptional circumstances."
The presiding judge denied the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:24-1(c) given the length of prior extensions and plaintiff's lack of diligence. The court emphasized that orders must carry effect, noting the plaintiff's continued delays reflected an absence of urgency and cooperation. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on August 4, 2023.
Appellate Division Affirms Strict Application of the Exceptional Circumstances Standard
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."
In the present matter, the plaintiff argued that Hollywood Café Inc. v. Jaffe, 473 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 2022), supported the application of a lower "good cause" standard. The panel rejected that argument, explaining that Hollywood Café applies only where an arbitration or trial date is administratively set by notice before the initial discovery period closes and not when, as here, a judge formally sets the date through case-management or discovery-extension order.
In Hollywood-Café, the court sought to avoid penalizing parties when an administrative scheduling notice prematurely fixes a trial date. By contrast, when a trial date is established by judicial order entered after the initial discovery period expires, the order carries binding effect, and therefore requires exceptional circumstances to be extended.
Establishing Exceptional Circumstances
A movant must meet the following four-part test to establish exceptional circumstances:
- Diligence during the discovery period;
- That the additional discovery sought is essential;
- A valid explanation for not seeking extension sooner; and
- That the delay arose from circumstances beyond counsel's and client's control. Hollywood Café, 473 N.J. Super. at 217 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Rivers v. LSC Partnership, 378 N.J. Super. 68, 874 A.2d (App. Div. 2005).
Conclusion
The Kronfeld decision highlights the courts' focus on discovery efficiency and diligent case handling. Litigants are expected to meet established deadlines, comply with court orders, and adhere strictly to the evidentiary requirements under Rule 4:46. Once a judicial trial date has been fixed, extensions are reserved for only the most extraordinary and uncontrollable circumstances. For defense practitioners, the case reinforces the power of disciplined motion practice and diligent record-keeping.
Key Takeaways
- Judicially set trial dates trigger the exceptional circumstances standard. Under Rule 4:24-1(c), once a trial or arbitration date is established by a judge through a discovery-extension or case-management order, no further discovery extensions may be granted absent exceptional circumstances. Administrative trial notices do not carry the same effect.
- Serial extensions invite judicial scrutiny. Seven or more discovery extensions totaling nearly 1,300 days demonstrated the court's patience had been exhausted. Litigants should expect diminishing tolerance for repetitive extension requests, even when health or logistical issues are cited.
- Compliance is the strongest defense. The defense's success in Kronfeld stemmed from procedural discipline- complying with every order, documenting the plaintiff's repeated delays, and capitalizing on procedural defaults. The ruling reaffirms that adherence to structure and strategy remains a cornerstone of effective defense litigation.
