have been within the six-year statute of limitations that the court found applicable to claims under the LAD. In Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282, 627 A.2d 654, 659 (1993), the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted a two-year statute of limitations for claims under the LAD. However, the Mon-tells court also held that its decision did not apply to cases pending at that time or to cases in which the operative facts arose before the date of the court's decision, see id. at 662, circumstances present here. 9 . The parties have not argued thal we need apply New Jersey procedure to the New Jersey claims, and we will apply the federal rules to both. See Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 139-40 (2d Cir.1994); cf. Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., Inc., 671 F.2d 100, 104 (3d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Salas by Salas v. Wang, 846 F.2d 897, 905-06
holding that when there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law claims the federal rule favoring admissibility  is the controlling rule the court found this approach consistent with the rule in federal practice disfavoring privileges not constitutionally based holding that a federal court may resort to state law analogies for the development of a federal common law of privileges in instances where the federal rule is unsettled holding that the federal rule favoring admissibility of relevant evidence applies to state law claims in federal cases to which state law privileges might oth erwise apply holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law