The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in three more cases. In Granata v. Broderick, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Among other issues, can an attorney’s pledge of anticipated counsel fees be considered a security interest under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code? The Appellate Division answered “yes” in an opinion by Judge Guadagno that was reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2016). That opinion observed that this was “an issue of first impression in New Jersey,” which undoubtedly led the Supreme Court to grant review.
Capital Health System, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc. is a case that has received a lot of attention in the press. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address the following issue: “In this action concerning defendant’s implementation of the OMNIA two-tiered provider network, may defendant redact certain information as confidential and proprietary before producing documents in discovery?”
The final matter is actually two consolidated appeals, State v. Shaw and State v. Bolden. There are two issues there, phrased by the Clerk’s Office as “Was the statement uttered by defendant while detained in a police vehicle the result of an unlawful detention; and, under the circumstances presented, must defendant show a protected privacy interest in the tote bag where drug evidence was found?” In a per curiam opinion, the Appellate Division (Judges Espinosa and Rothstadt) issued a mixed ruling, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding in part the denial of suppression motions that defendants filed. Now the Supreme Court will sort it out.