## Facts

- A woman filed a complaint under New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) against her brother-in-law, alleging he threatened to shoot her if she refused sex and that he had committed prior domestic violence against her.
- The court issued a temporary restraining order and scheduled a final hearing.
- Before the final hearing, the defendant served notice to take the plaintiff’s oral deposition; plaintiff refused to appear without a court order.
- The defendant sought court permission to depose the plaintiff, asserting (a) a need to explore whether the court had PDVA jurisdiction because the parties never lived together and (b) due process entitlement to greater prehearing notice of the allegations.
- The dispute came before the Family Part on the defendant’s interlocutory application for prehearing deposition discovery.

## Issues

1. Whether PDVA domestic-violence proceedings are “summary actions” such that discovery, including depositions, is not available as of right under New Jersey family practice rules.
2. Whether a defendant in a PDVA proceeding may depose the plaintiff absent a showing of good cause.
3. Whether due process requires allowing a defendant to take the plaintiff’s deposition before the final restraining order hearing.

## Decision

- The court held that PDVA proceedings are “summary actions.”
- The court ruled that there is no entitlement to depose the plaintiff as of course in a PDVA matter.
- The court adopted a “good cause” requirement for permitting depositions in PDVA cases.
- The court found the defendant failed to show good cause and denied the application to depose the plaintiff.
- The court rejected the defendant’s due process argument because the complaint and prompt hearing, with cross-examination, provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.

## Legal Principles

- PDVA actions are treated as summary proceedings designed for swift adjudication and prompt protection, limiting prehearing discovery.
- Under New Jersey family practice rules permitting discovery “except for summary actions,” PDVA matters do not carry ordinary discovery rights.
- Depositions of domestic-violence plaintiffs should be allowed only upon a specific showing of good cause, not based on generalized fairness claims.
- Due process in PDVA proceedings is satisfied by notice through the complaint and the opportunity to contest allegations at the final hearing, including cross-examination; prehearing deposition discovery is not constitutionally required.
- Courts may address genuine surprise or case-specific needs through targeted judicial management at or near the hearing rather than routine depositions that could delay protection and facilitate intimidation.

## Conclusion

The court classified PDVA domestic-violence matters as summary actions and held that a defendant may not depose the plaintiff as of right; depositions are available only upon a showing of good cause, which was not established on the defendant’s jurisdictional and due process assertions.


Depos v. Depos, 704 A.2d 1049 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1997)