A discovery dispute in the federal lawsuits brought by Bais Brucha, Inc. and Khal Anshei Tallymawr, Inc. against the Township of Toms River has intensified after the Township failed to meet a court ordered deadline involving Mayor Daniel Rodrick’s Township-issued electronic devices, TLS has learned.

On July 1, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Justin T. Quinn held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ second motion for sanctions. During that hearing, the Court learned that Mayor Daniel Rodrick had not yet produced his Township-issued devices in response to discovery requests. Judge Quinn stated that the devices likely contain relevant information and found there was “no excuse” for the failure to provide them to counsel. The Court ordered that the devices be turned over immediately so responsive materials could be produced by July 14, 2026.

One week later, on July 8, plaintiffs asked the Court to impose escalating monetary sanctions, arguing that the Township had repeatedly failed to comply with prior discovery orders. Their filing requested a coercive fine beginning at $25,000 per day and increasing by $5,000 per day, up to a maximum of $100,000 per day, until compliance was achieved. Plaintiffs also requested permission to seek additional sanctions if the Township continued to disregard the Court’s orders.

The Township opposed those requests, arguing that it had already produced most electronically stored documents during discovery and that delays resulted from the complexity of collecting and reviewing electronic information. The Township urged the Court to impose a substantially smaller sanction of $1,000 per day if necessary, and argued that any monetary penalties imposed against the municipality would ultimately be paid by taxpayers.

On July 9, defense counsel informed the Court that the Township would not be able to meet the July 14 production deadline. According to the filing, Township representatives had instructed the forensic vendor, KLDiscovery, to execute an additional confidentiality, non-disclosure, forensic preservation, and forensic evaluation agreement before beginning work on the devices. Defense counsel stated that this additional agreement delayed the forensic process and requested a seven-day extension of the production deadline.

Later that same day, plaintiffs opposed the requested extension. They argued that the Township itself had created the delay by imposing the additional agreement after the Court had already ordered production. Plaintiffs also expressed concern that the undisclosed agreement could restrict the forensic vendor’s ability to identify, preserve, or report evidence related to the electronic devices. They asked the Court to deny the extension, require production of the confidentiality agreement, and ensure that the forensic vendor remained free to report any issues concerning data preservation or potential spoliation.

After the July 14 deadline passed, plaintiffs notified the Court that responsive materials from Mayor Rodrick’s Township-issued devices had not been produced as ordered. Their July 15 filing states that defendants failed to turn over the required responsive materials by the Court’s deadline.

At this stage, the filings document an ongoing discovery dispute rather than a final ruling on sanctions. The Court ordered production of the Township-issued devices, the Township acknowledged it would miss the deadline and sought additional time, and plaintiffs contend the delay was avoidable and constitutes further noncompliance with the Court’s discovery orders.

No final determination from the courts regarding sanctions, contempt, or the merits of the underlying lawsuits appears in the filings reviewed.