Lois H. Goodman

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey magistrate Retired 2023 · served 2009–2023 12 signed orders read

Judge Goodman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Goodman decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On a claim of deliberative-process or attorney-client privilege over agency or municipal records, she applies the three-part procedural test strictly and will deny the privilege claim where the supporting affidavit gives only a conclusory reason (e.g., 'discussed with counsel') rather than precise, non-conclusory grounds -- an assertion of attorney-client privilege by itself does not satisfy the deliberative-process test's second prong.

“The responsible agency official needs to provide 'precise and certain reasons for asserting the privilege over the government information or documents at issue.' The Bianchi and Piedici Affidavits are fatally deficient in this regard. ... In essence, the only 'precise and certain reason' provided in the affidavits for asserting the deliberative process privilege is that the Township is entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege. This cannot suffice”

On a late motion to amend, she requires the movant to affirmatively show diligence (good cause) under Rule 16(b)(4) before reaching the more permissive Rule 15(a)(2) standard, and an opposing party's silence in earlier informal pre-motion correspondence does not waive its right to object once full briefing is filed.

“Atain does not argue that good cause exists because newly-discovered evidence came to light, nor does it argue good cause exists because of mistake or excusable neglect. ... this would not relieve Plaintiff of its independent obligation to show that it exercised diligence in seeking to make the late amendment.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Insignia Systems, Inc. v. Edelstein
3:09-cv-04619 (AET) · 2009-10-20
Motions to compel (petitioner (third-party subpoena proponent)) Denied

“ORDERED that Insignia's Petition to compel compliance with the subpoenas duces tecum served upon Respondents Goodell and Edelstein [Docket Entry No. 1] be and it hereby is DENIED”

Motion for sanctions (petitioner) Denied

“ORDERED that the request for sanctions and fees against Respondents is DENIED”

Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Delaware River Basin Commission
3:10-cv-05639 (AET)(LHG) · 2014-06-09
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel [Docket Entry No. 56] is DENIED”

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sandoz, Inc.
3:12-cv-03289 (PGS)(LHG) · 2014-01-06
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court affirms the January 6, 2014 Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Defendant's Expert Report.”

Motion to amend (defendant) Denied

“Magistrate Judge Goodman's decision on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law ... Having denied Defendant's Motion to Amend its Invalidity Contentions, Magistrate Judge Goodman reasoned that permitting Defendant to include the fifteen additional prior art references in its expert report would essentially negate the effect of her prior decision”

Oceanview Marina Townhomes v. Lexington Insurance Company
3:14-cv-01368 (PGS) · 2015-04-23
Motions to dismiss (court (sua sponte discovery-noncompliance recommendation)) Granted

“ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman at docket entry 14 is hereby adopted as the opinion of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”

Steinhardt v. Bernardsville Police Department, et al.
3:17-cv-02169 (MAS)(LHG) · 2018-07-31
Motion for appointment of counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel [Docket Entry No. 23] is DENIED.”

Quick, et al. v. Township of Bernards, et al.
3:17-cv-05595 (MAS)(LHG) · 2020-03-19
Motion for protective order (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED that the Motion for a Protective Order [Docket Entry No. 52] is hereby DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall schedule the depositions in question and shall notify the Court as to when they are to take place.”

Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. Northeast Mountain Guiding, LLC, et al.
3:16-cv-05129 (BRM)(LHG) · 2020-11-30
Motion to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Amend [Docket Entry No. 107] is DENIED”

Motion to amend (defendant) Moot / procedural

“ORDERED that the Cross-Motion for Leave to Amend [Docket Entry No. 116] is also DENIED. ... Because the Court is denying Atain's Motion to Amend, the Court also denies the NMG Cross-Motion as moot.”

Graham v. Monmouth County Buildings and Grounds, et al.
3:19-cv-18763 (PGS)(LHG) · 2022-02-22
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Docket Entry No. 53] is DENIED”

In re Application of Emmanuel N. Lazaridis (Bring Sean Home Foundation)
3:10-mc-00029 (FLW) · 2011-09-01
Motion to quash (respondent (subpoena recipient)) Granted

“ORDERED that BSHF's motion to quash the Subpoena and for a protective order [Docket Entry No. 6] is GRANTED”

Motion for protective order (respondent (subpoena recipient)) Granted
Motion for sanctions (respondent (subpoena recipient)) Denied

“ORDERED that BSHF's motion for sanctions is DENIED.”

Bragg v. Wilson, et al.
3:16-cv-02868 (FLW)(LHG) · 2017-12-21
Motion for appointment of counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that Plaintiff's requests for pro bono counsel [Docket Entry Nos. 33 and 46] are DENIED”

Motion for psychiatric evaluation (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Request Permission to Retain a Psychiatrist [Docket Entry No. 49] is DENIED”

Motions to stay (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Stay [Docket Entry No. 51] is DENIED as moot”

Quick, et al. v. Township of Bernards, et al.
3:17-cv-05595 (MAS)(LHG) · 2019-07-29
Motion for protective order (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, the Motion for a Protective Order [Docket Entry No. 48] is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Bailey v. Millennium Group of Delaware
1:18-cv-01188 (FLW)(LHG) · 2019-11-12
Motion to amend (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Because Judge Wolfson already granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is moot.”

A historical record

Judge Goodman no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.