In a Decision – Freedenfeld v. Freedenfeld, (an Unpublished Opinion) >> the Court Held:
Defendant alleged that the trial court erred in its analysis of defendant's request for a modification of support based on a change of circumstances and directing the production of a Case Information Statement (confidentially produced at Arbitration) because it violated the arbitration agreement and public policy. The Appellate Division agreed that the production of a Case Information Statement confidentially produced at Arbitration need not be produced at Court. The court found that compelling the defendant to produce a CIS submitted to the arbitrator effectively nullified the agreement made by the parties. The Appellate Division found that defendant was entitled to review of his motion for modification and that the trial judge had other tools available including CIS' filed prior to and after arbitration.
The parties agreed to keep the financial documents confidential. They even agreed that the arbitrator's recommendation would omit any detailed discussion of the financial information submitted during the process. Given these circumstances, the parties' understanding should not be effectively nullified by compelling defendant to produce the Case Information Statement supplied to the arbitrator. The confidentiality agreement benefitted plaintiff as well as defendant.