Defendant, Smith & Wesson, appeals from a June 30, 2021 Chancery Division order directing it to respond to a subpoena issued the Attorney General and the Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. Defendant also appeals a second June 30, 2021, Chancery Division order denying its cross-motion to dismiss, stay, or quash the subpoena.
Faced with defendant's first-filed federal complaint against plaintiffs' motion to quash the subpoena, and with plaintiffs' subsequently filed order to show cause to enforce the subpoena, the Chancery Division judge assumed jurisdiction, finding special equities which justified avoiding the first-filed doctrine. The judge then found the subpoena valid. Defendant appealed, arguing the judge erred by misapplying the first-filed doctrine and by rejecting its constitutional attacks on the subpoena.
The court held that: special equities exist which support avoidance of the first filed doctrine; NAACP v. Alabama does not require resolution of defendant's constitutional claims at this stage of the litigation; defendant's federal constitutional claims are not ripe for consideration; and the subpoena is valid.