I am drafting a Certification in response to a motion where the progress of ongoing reunification therapy is the main issue.  In order to properly address this issue, I need to quote from and attach as exhibits numerous reports from the reunification therapists.  As I did not represent the client in the Divorce, she has forwarded me several of the reports that predated my involvement in this matter.  In opening the electronic files, I noticed that 1 of the reports had a Protective Order that limited its use for the "pending action only," which at that time, was the divorce.

With that said, I would really appreciate thoughts on the following:

1.  Does the Protective Order (which limits the use of the report to only the "pending action")prevent me from using the report in post-judgment litigation? 

2.  In my client's Certification, I am lifting quotes from the reports.  Even though the exhibits with the reports are confidential per the court rules (and cannot be made public), the Certification is still a public document.  Should I redact the quotes from the reports in the version I file with the Family Division and provide non-redacted copies to the judge and adversary?  Should I seek the adversary's consent to file the entire application under seal?  Am I overthinking this? 

No attorney wants to get sued, so I want to be very careful with this.  I don't want a parent believing that I jeopardized his/her relationship with a child by disclosing these quotes in a Certification the child could eventually read. 

Regardless of any protective order, none of this should be included, either by attaching exhibits, are excerpting quotations. It is all hearsay, beyond any exceptions. The only verbiage that can come in from such reports, generally speaking, would be, for example, embedded statements of a party opponent. NJRE 803 (b)(1). Excerpting also created NJRE 106 issues.

Even if you were to attach such documents or documents segments to a motion brief, you are still noncompliant with R. 1:6-6. Such documents must be incorporated by reference in an appropriate affidavit or certification, which properly authenticates material which is otherwise admissible. See Celino v. General Acc. Ins., 211 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 1986); Sellers v. Schonfeld, 270 N.J. Super. 424 (App. Div. 1993); Valley Nat. v. American Motor. Ins., 316 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 1998). Such documents should not be considered by the court. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592, 600 (App. Div. 2011). But your documents are not even otherwise admissible.

There are consequences when lawyers and judges ignore this rule, see Mazur v. Crane's Mill Nurs. Home, 441 N.J. Super. 168, 180, 182 (App. Div. 2015).

You did not specify if these documents were certified or adopted as the result of discovery. Discovery materials, including such unsworn materials as expert reports, may be submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion without further certification or affidavit. Baldyga v. Oldman, 261 N.J. Super. 259 (App. Div. 1993).

Whenever I have had adversaries excerpt or attach such patently objectionable materials, I have invariably moved the court in limine, right after appearances are entered but before my adversary begins oral argument, to strike, on the record, each and every such reference and exhibits in the papers and for a limiting instruction to the adversary not to make related statements during argument. Those motions have never been denied and they have occurred rather frequently.

Thanks.

Regardless of any protective order, none of this should be included, either by attaching exhibits, are excerpting quotations. It is all hearsay, beyond any exceptions. The only verbiage that can come in from such reports, generally speaking, would be, for example, embedded statements of a party opponent. NJRE 803 (b)(1). Excerpting also created NJRE 106 issues.

Even if you were to attach such documents or documents segments to a motion brief, you are still noncompliant with R. 1:6-6. Such documents must be incorporated by reference in an appropriate affidavit or certification, which properly authenticates material which is otherwise admissible. See Celino v. General Acc. Ins., 211 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 1986); Sellers v. Schonfeld, 270 N.J. Super. 424 (App. Div. 1993); Valley Nat. v. American Motor. Ins., 316 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 1998). Such documents should not be considered by the court. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592, 600 (App. Div. 2011). But your documents are not even otherwise admissible.

There are consequences when lawyers and judges ignore this rule, see Mazur v. Crane's Mill Nurs. Home, 441 N.J. Super. 168, 180, 182 (App. Div. 2015).

You did not specify if these documents were certified or adopted as the result of discovery. Discovery materials, including such unsworn materials as expert reports, may be submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion without further certification or affidavit. Baldyga v. Oldman, 261 N.J. Super. 259 (App. Div. 1993).

Whenever I have had adversaries excerpt or attach such patently objectionable materials, I have invariably moved the court in limine, right after appearances are entered but before my adversary begins oral argument, to strike, on the record, each and every such reference and exhibits in the papers and for a limiting instruction to the adversary not to make related statements during argument. Those motions have never been denied and they have occurred rather frequently.

Thanks.