Civil Procedure – Court clarifies scope of craved oyer doctrine

Where the parties disputed the scope of the craved oyer doctrine, the court held that it is far more than a device to help a defendant understand the nature of the claims asserted against it. A trial court should grant a motion craving oyer “where the missing document is essential to the claim.”

Background

Plaintiff Economic Systems Inc. contends it sought out candidates from defendant APFS Staffing Group Inc. for employment or engagement, that defendant forwarded plaintiff the resume and credentials of an alleged fraudster named Simone Bettina Murray, that plaintiff engaged Murray to perform sensitive work on its behalf after relying upon representations from defendant and that Murray embezzled, converted or improperly diverted over $2,481,569 to her own benefit.

Plaintiff has asserted claims for fraud, fraud in the inducement, unjust enrichment and breach of contract against defendant. Defendant has craved oyer of a number of documents mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint. Some of these documents have been specifically referenced and some have been generally referenced. Plaintiff contends defendant is using oyer as an improper substitute for discovery under Rule 4:9. Plaintiff asks this court to rule that oyer should be limited to only a few core documents that are “essential” to help defendant understand the claims alleged in its complaint.

Analysis

A motion craving oyer is designed to help a defendant understand the nature of the claim being asserted by the plaintiff. It is not, and never has been, merely a tool to obtain discovery of documents that may be useful but which are not fundamental to the plaintiff’s claim.

However, it is clear a motion craving oyer is far more than a device to help a defendant understand the nature of the claims asserted against it. Instead, it has been specifically sanctioned as a salutary tool that may be used to summarily dispense with “ill-founded” claims at the pleading stage.

Set against the foregoing background, a trial court should grant a motion craving oyer “where the missing document is essential to the claim.” This presents a question of law. A document is “essential” if the plaintiff’s claim is based upon it.

Here, plaintiff contends that defendant provided it with Murray’s resume amid representations it had vetted her candidacy for a sensitive role. Because the provision of Murray’s allegedly fraudulent resume and “other information” undergirds at least plaintiff’s fraud claim, the motion craving oyer is granted as to Murray’s resume, any emails transmitting said resume from defendant to plaintiff and any documents containing “other information” which plaintiff contends was fraudulent as set forth in paragraph 66 of the complaint. Plaintiff need not provide oyer of resumes from other than Murray even if they were transmitted in the same emails as Murray’s resume.

Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is based on a statement of work attached to the complaint as an exhibit. However, paragraph 25 of the complaint alleges that “[Defendant] Addison Group further represented that ‘the Assigned Consultant will have the experience defined in the resume provided to Client prior to engagement . . .’”. This quote appears to be from a document, and thus defendant has craved oyer of any document from which this quote is taken unless it is the statement of work.

Because allegedly fraudulent representations of this sort appear to be part of the alleged basis for plaintiff’s fraud claims (if not its other claims), the motion craving oyer is granted to the extent the alleged statement in paragraph 25 is based on a document other than the statement of work.

The allegations of paragraphs 28-29 also appear to allege misrepresentations based on quotes from a written document. If so, the motion craving oyer is granted as to the document(s) from which the quotes were lifted.

Finally, the motion craving oyer is granted as to the invoices referenced in paragraphs 132-133. The complaint alleges that monies changed hands in reliance on the fraudulent representation that Murray had invoiced for legitimate work.

Defendant’s motion craving oyer granted in part.

Economic Systems, Inc. v. Murray, Case No. CL-2026-003930, June 12, 2026. Fairfax County Circuit Court (McEvoy). VLW 026-8-016. 6 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-8-016