
Joel N. Kreizman
Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
Date: January 16, 2015

Partner
732-568-8363 jkreizman@sh-law.comIn December, the Supreme Court of New Jersey announced new rules for the use of electronic devices in the state’s courtrooms. They take effect on February 2, 2015.
The guidelines, which were last revised in 2003, are intended to reflect changes in technology as well as the way in which news is reported. They apply equally to journalists, attorneys, and the public.
As noted by the New Jersey Judiciary, “The pervasiveness of new electronic devices, and their availability to traditional journalists, bloggers, new age journalists and the general public, requires courts to implement guidelines governing the use of electronic devices in and around a courthouse, so that their use does not compromise fairness to litigants, efficiency in court proceedings and/or appropriate courtroom decorum.”
The most significant change is that anyone who wants to use electronic equipment in the courtroom must sign an agreement that they will adhere to the rules set forth in Supreme Court Guidelines on Electronic Devices in the Courtroom. The agreement must only be signed once and is then valid for 12 months. Once it is executed, the agreement permits the individual to use an electronic device inside a courtroom to take notes and receive information and communications without further approval being required. Violating the agreement may result in sanctions, including, but not limited to, contempt of court.
The guidelines for recording, photographing or broadcasting a court proceeding are virtually unchanged. Individuals seeking to do so must request permission from the court to do so.
The guidelines also address the permissible use of electronic devices on courthouse grounds and common areas. For instance, while in common areas of a courthouse individuals may use an electronic device for any purpose other than to take photographs, electronically record and/or broadcast. The guidelines also reserve the right to restrict the use of electronic devices if such use “interferes with the administration of justice, poses a threat to safety or security, or compromises the integrity of the proceedings.”
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!