Camden, NJ — A federal judge in the District of New Jersey has ruled against defendants in a heated South Jersey property and police misconduct case, denying a motion to quash a subpoena and rejecting efforts to seal discovery documents. The ruling clears the way for plaintiffs Geraldine Capobianco Jones and her family to compel production of a land survey they say is central to proving their claims.
The decision, filed under Geraldine Capobianco Jones et al. v. Amanda Ryan et al., Civil No. 23-4557 (KMW/EAP), comes amid ongoing litigation over both a property boundary dispute in Maurice River Township and allegations of excessive force by members of the New Jersey State Police. The opinion was issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage.
Dispute Over Boundary Survey
At the center of the latest dispute is a land survey conducted by engineer Guy DeFabrites, which was meant to clarify a contested boundary between the Jones family’s property at 187 High Street and that of their neighbors, Daniel and Elizabeth Thompson, who own 189 High Street. The Thompsons filed a motion to quash a Rule 45 subpoena issued by plaintiff Geraldine Capobianco Jones, seeking to prevent DeFabrites from turning over materials related to his survey.
The Thompsons also filed a separate motion to limit and seal discovery, arguing that the survey documents should not become part of the public record. Plaintiffs opposed both motions and filed a cross-motion to compel compliance with the subpoena.
In her opinion, the judge denied both of the Thompsons’ motions, concluding that the subpoena was proper and that the defendants had not shown sufficient cause to block or seal the requested materials. The court granted the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, directing that DeFabrites must comply with the subpoena and produce the documents.
Background of the Case
The underlying case stems from events that began in December 2020, when Rhys and Geraldine Jones purchased their property at a township auction and began renovations the following spring. According to the complaint, their neighbors, Daniel and Elizabeth Thompson, expressed frustration that they had missed the auction and soon began what plaintiffs describe as “a campaign of harassment” aimed at seizing use of a portion of the disputed land.
Plaintiffs allege that the Thompsons repeatedly filed false trespassing complaints, contacted police, tampered with property markers, and even used a fraudulent survey to advance their claim. Tensions escalated dramatically in June 2021, when a call to the New Jersey State Police led to an alleged violent encounter between the Jones family and multiple troopers.
Allegations Against Law Enforcement
The complaint names several state police officers, including Trooper Amanda Ryan, Trooper Daryl Hill, and Lieutenant Jamie Anne Champ. Plaintiffs claim that on June 22, 2021, troopers responded to the Thompsons’ trespassing complaint, entered the Jones property, and attacked Geraldine Jones without justification.
According to the filing, Geraldine Jones was handcuffed, thrown to the ground, and beaten by officers, resulting in a dislocated and fractured shoulder. The complaint further alleges that Lieutenant Champ lifted her by the injured arm and dropped her multiple times, while as many as twenty-one officers joined in surrounding and assaulting her. When her son, Liam Jones, tried to intervene, officers allegedly bent his arm against a doorframe, causing severe bruising. Another son, Rhys Jones Jr., was also allegedly placed in a chokehold and struck in the back.
The Jones family asserts claims under federal civil rights law, accusing the officers of excessive force, unlawful arrest, and conspiracy, in addition to state law tort claims.
Motions and Procedural History
The case has been marked by a flurry of motions. Early in the proceedings, the court dismissed claims against Daniel Thompson Jr., the son of the neighboring property owners and a law enforcement officer, finding insufficient evidence linking him to the alleged misconduct.
The present ruling focused on the discovery stage of the litigation. Plaintiffs sought access to the DeFabrites survey materials to substantiate their claims that the Thompsons and their associates used falsified boundary data to influence local authorities and the courts.
The Thompsons’ motion to quash argued that the subpoena was overly broad and burdensome and that the materials were irrelevant to the remaining claims. They also sought to seal the discovery materials to prevent their public release.
The court rejected these arguments, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain the requested information, which appeared directly relevant to the dispute. The judge emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in the discovery process and noted that the defendants had not met the legal standard required for sealing documents.
The Court’s Ruling
In her written opinion, the judge ruled:
- The Thompson defendants’ motion to quash (ECF No. 111) is denied.
- Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to compel compliance (ECF No. 122) is granted.
- The Thompson defendants’ motion for limitation on and sealing of discovery (ECF No. 121) is denied.
The decision allows the plaintiffs to obtain the DeFabrites survey materials and use them in ongoing proceedings.
What Comes Next
The ruling represents a significant procedural victory for the Jones family, whose lawsuit continues to proceed through discovery. The outcome may also influence the broader scope of evidence available as the plaintiffs prepare for trial against both private defendants and law enforcement officers.
The Jones family maintains that the property dispute and subsequent police encounter were interconnected, arguing that their neighbors’ influence and repeated complaints led to a coordinated and violent response from authorities.
Meanwhile, the Thompson defendants and state police officers continue to deny wrongdoing. No trial date has yet been scheduled.
The case, Geraldine Capobianco Jones et al. v. Amanda Ryan et al., remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage.