Substitute Expert 3101(d)

Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 08280 [2d Dept. 2018]

Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding her from proffering the testimony of a “substitute expert” at trial. Pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), “where a party for good cause shown retains an expert an insufficient period of time before the commencement of trial to give appropriate notice thereof, the party shall not thereupon be precluded from introducing the expert’s testimony at the trial solely on grounds of noncompliance with this paragraph” (emphasis added). “A determination regarding whether to preclude a party from introducing the testimony of an expert witness at trial based on the party’s failure to comply with CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) is left to the sound discretion of the court” (McGlauflin v Wadhwa, 265 AD2d 534, 534). Here, since the plaintiff offered only a vague excuse for the unavailability of the intended expert, without offering any details as to when the plaintiff learned of that expert’s unavailability, she failed to establish good cause to offer the testimony of the “substitute expert” (see Banister v Marquis, 87 AD3d 1046Caccioppoli v City of New York, 50 AD3d 1079Klatsky v Lewis, 268 AD2d 410, 411). Moreover, the plaintiff had previously been unprepared to proceed with trial due to, inter alia, the unavailability of experts (see Fava v City of New York, 5 AD3d 724, 725).

3101

McMahon v New York Organ Donor Network, 2018 NY Slip Op 03820 [1st Dept. 2018]

Disclosure of these records is not prohibited by federal law. Although defendant is not a covered entity under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (see 45 CFR 160.102; 160.103), it is authorized to receive medical records from covered entities "for the purpose of facilitating organ, eye or tissue donation and transplantation" (45 CFR 164.512[h]). It is also required to abide by HIPAA's privacy protections pursuant to New York Public Health Law (PHL) § 4351(8), which provides, "Any employee or agent of a federally designated organ procurement organization, eye bank or tissue bank . . . shall be held to the same standard of confidentiality as that imposed on employees of the hospital." However, because the subject disclosure would be made in the course of a judicial proceeding and pursuant to a qualified protective order, it is authorized under HIPAA (see 45 CFR 164.512[e][1][ii][B], [iv], [v]).

Nevertheless, PHL § 4351(8) renders defendant's documents subject to the protections of the physician-patient privilege set forth at CPLR 4504. This privilege is personal to the patient and is not terminated by death (Chanko v American Broadcasting Cos. Inc., 27 NY3d 46, 53 [2016]). It has not been expressly or implicitly waived in this case by the donors' next of kin (see Perez v Fleischer, 122 AD3d 1157, 1159 [3d Dept 2014], lv dismissed 25 NY3d 985 [2015]). However, plaintiff demonstrated that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to his claim and that "the circumstances warrant overcoming the privilege and permitting discovery of the records with all identifying patient information appropriately redacted to protect patient confidentiality" (see Seaman v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., Inc., 25 AD3d 596, 597 [2d Dept 2006]; accord Cole v Panos, 128 AD3d 880, 883 [2d Dept 2015]). Allowing disclosure under these circumstances is consistent with the public policy underlying the whistleblower statute, i.e., to encourage employees to report hazards to supervisors and the public (see Leibowitz v Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 152 AD2d 169, 176 [2d Dept 1989]).

Facebook Discovery

Forman v Henkin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01015 [2018]

New York discovery rules do not condition a party's receipt of disclosure on a showing that the items the party seeks actually exist; rather, the request need only be appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information. Indeed, as the name suggests, the purpose of discovery is to determine if material relevant to a claim or defense exists. In many if not most instances, a party seeking disclosure will not be able to demonstrate that items it has not yet obtained contain material evidence. Thus, we reject the notion that the account holder's so-called "privacy" settings govern the scope of disclosure of social media materials.

That being said, we agree with other courts that have rejected the notion that commencement of a personal injury action renders a party's entire Facebook account automatically discoverable (see e.g. Kregg v Maldonado, 98 AD3d 1289, 1290 [4th Dept 2012] [rejecting motion to compel disclosure of all social media accounts involving injured party without prejudice to narrowly-tailored request seeking only relevant information]; Giacchettosupra, 293 FRD 112, 115; Kennedy v Contract Pharmacal Corp., 2013 WL 1966219, *2 [ED NY 2013]). Directing disclosure of a party's entire Facebook account is comparable to ordering discovery of every photograph or communication that party shared with any person on any topic prior to or since the incident giving rise to litigation — such an order would be likely to yield far more nonrelevant than relevant information. Even under our broad disclosure paradigm, litigants are protected from "unnecessarily onerous application of the discovery statutes" (Kavanaughsupra, 92 NY2d at 954).

Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all rule at either of these extremes, courts addressing disputes over the scope of social media discovery should employ our well-established rules — there is no need for a specialized or heightened factual predicate to avoid improper "fishing expeditions." In the event that judicial intervention becomes necessary, courts should first consider the nature of the event giving rise to the litigation and the injuries claimed, as well as any other information specific to the case, to assess whether relevant material is likely to be found on the Facebook account. Second, balancing the potential utility of the information sought against any specific "privacy" or other concerns raised by the account holder, the court should issue an order tailored to the particular controversy that identifies the types of materials that must be disclosed while avoiding disclosure of nonrelevant materials. In a personal injury case such as this it is appropriate to consider the nature of the underlying incident and the injuries claimed and to craft a rule for discovering information specific to each. Temporal limitations may also be appropriate — for example, the court should consider whether photographs or messages posted years before an accident are likely to be germane to the litigation. Moreover, to the extent the account may contain sensitive or embarrassing materials of marginal relevance, the account holder can seek protection from the court (see CPLR 3103[a]). Here, for example, Supreme Court exempted from disclosure any photographs of plaintiff depicting nudity or romantic encounters.

Plaintiff suggests that disclosure of social media materials necessarily constitutes an unjustified invasion of privacy. We assume for purposes of resolving the narrow issue before us that some materials on a Facebook account may fairly be characterized as private [FN5]. But even private materials may be subject to discovery if they are [*5]relevant. For example, medical records enjoy protection in many contexts under the physician-patient privilege (see CPLR 4504). But when a party commences an action, affirmatively placing a mental or physical condition in issue, certain privacy interests relating to relevant medical records — including the physician-patient privilege — are waived (see Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393, 409 [2007]; Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]). For purposes of disclosure, the threshold inquiry is not whether the materials sought are private but whether they are reasonably calculated to contain relevant information.

Applying these principles here, the Appellate Division erred in modifying Supreme Court's order to further restrict disclosure of plaintiff's Facebook account, limiting discovery to only those photographs plaintiff intended to introduce at trial [FN6]. With respect to the items Supreme Court ordered to be disclosed (the only portion of the discovery request we may consider), defendant more than met his threshold burden of showing that plaintiff's Facebook account was reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence. At her deposition, plaintiff indicated that, during the period prior to the accident, she posted "a lot" of photographs showing her active lifestyle. Likewise, given plaintiff's acknowledged tendency to post photographs representative of her activities on Facebook, there was a basis to infer that photographs she posted after the accident might be reflective of her post-accident activities and/or limitations. The request for these photographs was reasonably calculated to yield evidence relevant to plaintiff's assertion that she could no longer engage in the activities she enjoyed before the accident and that she had become reclusive. It happens in this case that the order was naturally limited in temporal scope because plaintiff deactivated her Facebook account six months after the accident and Supreme Court further exercised its discretion to exclude photographs showing nudity or romantic encounters, if any, presumably to avoid undue embarrassment or invasion of privacy.

In addition, it was reasonably likely that the data revealing the timing and number of characters in posted messages would be relevant to plaintiffs' claim that she suffered cognitive injuries that caused her to have difficulty writing and using the computer, particularly her claim that she is painstakingly slow in crafting messages. Because Supreme Court provided defendant no access to the content of any messages on the Facebook account (an aspect of the order we cannot review given defendant's failure to appeal to the Appellate Division), we have no occasion to further address whether defendant made a showing sufficient to obtain disclosure of such content and, if so, how the order could have been tailored, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, to avoid discovery of nonrelevant materials.[FN7]

In sum, the Appellate Division erred in concluding that defendant had not met his threshold burden of showing that the materials from plaintiff's Facebook account that were ordered to be disclosed pursuant to Supreme Court's order were reasonably calculated to contain evidence "material and necessary" to the litigation. A remittal is not necessary here because, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff neither made a claim of statutory privilege, nor offered any other specific reason — beyond the general assertion that defendant did not meet his threshold burden — why any of those materials should be shielded from disclosure.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division order insofar as appealed from should be reversed, with costs, the Supreme Court order reinstated and the certified question answered in the negative.

Medical Reports: 22 NYCRR 202.17 [Ct. App.]

CPLR 3121(a)

CPLR 3101

CPLR 4411

22 NYCRR 202.17(b)(1)

Hamilton v Miller, 2014 NY Slip Op 04230 [2014]

In most personal injury cases, disclosure under this rule is straightforward. The injured plaintiff goes to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment. The doctor drafts a report. The plaintiff turns over the report to the defendant.

This case is more complicated. Plaintiffs allegedly suffered lead poisoning as children. Now adults, plaintiffs allege that their childhood exposure to lead caused them numerous injuries. It appears from the dearth of medical evidence in the record that plaintiffs may never have been treated for or diagnosed with many of the alleged injuries. This raises the question of what plaintiffs must disclose in order to comply with rule 202.17 (b) (1).

Plaintiffs argue that the rule requires them to turn over only those reports that currently exist from providers who have "previously treated or examined" them. They argue that they are not required to document or create medical evidence of every alleged injury. To the extent that plaintiffs are arguing that the rule does not obligate them to hire a medical provider to examine them and create a report solely for purposes of the litigations, we agree. Requiring a personal injury plaintiff to hire a medical professional to draft a report purely to satisfy 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) could make it prohibitively expensive for some plaintiffs to bring legitimate personal injury suits. Some plaintiffs may not be able to afford a medical examination or may not even have access to a doctor. Plaintiffs therefore need only produce reports from medical providers who have "previously treated or examined" them.

To the extent, however, that plaintiffs claim that they need to turn over only those medical reports that currently exist, we disagree. The rule obligates plaintiffs to provide comprehensive reports from their treating and examining medical providers — the reports "shall include a recital of the injuries and conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial" (22 NYCRR 202.17 [b] [1]) [emphasis added]). Plaintiffs therefore cannot avoid disclosure simply because their treating or examining medical providers have not drafted any reports within the meaning of rule 202.17 (b) (1) (see Ciriello v Virgues, 156 AD2d 417, 418 [2d Dept 1989] ["[T]he fact that a report never was prepared does not obviate the party's obligation under the rules"]; Davidson v Steer/Peanut Gallery, 277 AD2d 965, 965 [4th Dept 2000]; Pierson v [*3]Yourish, 122 AD2d 202, 203 [2d Dept 1986]). If plaintiffs' medical reports do not contain the information required by the rule, then plaintiffs must have the medical providers draft reports setting forth that information (see id.)[FN2]. If that is not possible, plaintiffs must seek relief from disclosure and explain why they cannot comply with the rule (see 22 NYCRR 202.17 [j]).

We conclude therefore that Supreme Court abused its discretion in requiring plaintiffs to provide medical evidence ofeach alleged injury or otherwise be precluded from offering evidence of that injury at trial. Supreme Court's motivation for granting that relief is understandable. Plaintiffs' counsel filed boilerplate bills of particulars and then did not disclose medical records substantiating the alleged injuries. To that end, plaintiffs should amend their respective bills of particulars to reflect those injuries actually sustained. Nonetheless, although Supreme Court had wide, inherent discretion to manage discovery, foster orderly proceedings, and limit counsel's gamesmanship (see Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 954 [1998]), the ordered relief exceeded the court's power.

Supreme Court also granted relief beyond that contemplated by rule 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) by requiring plaintiffs to produce, prior to the defense examination, a medical report causally relating plaintiffs' injuries to lead paint exposure or be precluded from offering proof of such injuries at trial. The rule requires that the medical reports "include a recital of the injuries and the conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial, . . . including a [*4]description of the injuries, a diagnosis, and a prognosis." There is no requirement that medical providers causally relate the injury to the defendant's negligence or, in this case, the lead paint exposure.

If determining causation requires evidence from a medical professional, causation is more appropriately dealt with at the expert discovery phase and pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d). If defendants wish to expedite expert discovery, they can move in Supreme Court for amendment of the scheduling orders. Should plaintiffs fail to produce any evidence of causation, then defendants can move for and obtain summary judgment.

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff Hamilton's CPLR 4511 motion to take judicial notice of 42 USC § 4851. That provision contains Congress's findings justifying legislation aimed at reducing lead — findings such as: "at low levels, lead poisoning in children causes intelligence quotient deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and behavior problems;" and "the Federal Government must take a leadership role in building the infrastructure—including an informed public, State and local delivery systems, certified inspectors, contractors, and laboratories, trained workers, and available financing and insurance—necessary to ensure that the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing can be achieved as expeditiously as possible" (42 USC § 4851 [2], [8]). Hamilton apparently sought judicial notice of the federal provision in order to avoid having to prove general causation — that lead paint exposure can cause some or all of his alleged injuries.

CPLR 4511 allows a court to take notice of federal and foreign state law, not facts, that is relevant to a proceeding (CPLR 4511; Pfleuger v Pfleuger, 304 NY 148, 151 [1952]). The congressional findings in support of legislation seeking to reduce amounts of lead in homes, though codified in a federal statute, are not "law" that is relevant to Hamilton's case. Taking judicial notice of them under CPLR 4511 would be inappropriate.

What Hamilton really wanted was to have Supreme Court take judicial notice of the fact that exposure to lead paint can cause injury. "To be sure, a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy" (People v Jones, 73 NY2d 427, 431 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]). But general causation, at least in scientifically complex cases, is not such a fact. Hamilton needs to prove, through scientific evidence, that exposure to lead-based paint can cause the injuries of which he complains (see Parker v Mobile Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 448 [2006]). He cannot avoid that burden simply because Congress, in statutory preambles, has opined on the dangers of lead-based paint.Accordingly, in each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by remitting to Supreme Court for further [*5]proceedings in accordance with this opinion and, as so modified, affirmed, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Cant’t hide investigation behind attorney client privilege

CPLR 3101

National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v TransCanada Energy USA, Inc., 2014 NY Slip Op 01283 [1st Dept. 2014] 

The motion court properly found that the majority of the documents sought to be withheld are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine or as materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. The record shows that the insurance companies retained counsel to provide a coverage opinion, i.e. an opinion as to whether the insurance companies should pay or deny the claims. Documents prepared in the ordinary course of an insurer's investigation of whether to pay or deny a claim are not privileged, and do not become so " merely because [the] investigation was conducted by an attorney'" (see Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 191 [1st Dept 2005]).

 

attorney drafted 3101(d)

CPLR 3101(d)

Bacani v Rosenberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 00737 [1st Dept. 2014]

Upon renewal, the motion court properly dismissed the action as against Rosenberg. As this Court previously found, the opinions of plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Harrigan, failed to raise a triable issue, and plaintiffs' submission of an attorney-drafted CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosure averring that an expert pathologist would testify concerning causation is not evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat the subject motion for summary judgment (see e.g. Velasco v Green-Wood Cemetery, 48 AD3d 271, 272 [1st Dept 2008]). Furthermore, plaintiffs' argument that the claims against Nanda and Rosenberg differ is unavailing because, if Dr. Nanda was not [negligent in failing to order additional testing, Dr. Rosenberg could not be negligent in failing to ask Dr. Nanda to order such testing.

Emphasis mine.

CPLR 2001 procedural irregularities and CPLR 3101 overbroad discovery

CPLR 2001

CPLR 3101

Lawrence v Kennedy, 2014 NY Slip Op 00329 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly considered the firm's motion for leave to reargue that branch of its prior motion which was to compel the production of certain documents despite certain procedural irregularities, as those irregularities did not prejudice the decedent (see CPLR 2001; Jones v LeFrance Leasing L.P., 81 AD3d 900, 903; Piquette v City of New York, 4 AD3d 402, 403). Further, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting leave to reargue (see CPLR 2221[d][2]; Singleton v Lenox Hill Hosp., 61 AD3d 956, 957; Marini v Lombardo, 17 AD3d 545, 546; Carrillo v PM Realty Group, 16 AD3d 611, 611).

Upon reargument, however, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the firm's motion which was to compel the production of the documents, including certain documents removed from the firm's offices by the plaintiff. In this regard, the firm's document requests, many of which sought the decedent's personal financial information, were overly broad, and sought irrelevant or confidential information (see Conte v County of Nassau, 87 AD3d 559, 560; Board of Mgrs. of the Park Regent Condominium v Park Regent Assoc., 78 AD3d 752, 753; Pugliese v Mondello, 57 AD3d 637, 640; Benfeld v Fleming Props., LLC, 44 AD3d 599, 600; Bell v Cobble Hill Health Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 620, 621; Latture v Smith, 304 AD2d 534, 536).

Emphasis is mine.

 

CPLR 3101 Additional discovery of financial documents was neither material nor necessary

CPLR 3101(a)

Hatter v Myerson, 2014 NY Slip Op 00326 [2nd Dept. 2014]

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the additional discovery of financial documents sought by the appellant was neither material nor necessary in the defense of the action (see CPLR 3101[a]; Constantino v Dock's Clam Bar & Pasta House, 60 AD3d 612).

Decision doesnt give anything in the way of facts, but it might prove useful as a cite.

Pecile v Titan Capital Group, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00425 [1st Dept. 2014]

 

Regarding defendants' demand for access to plaintiffs' social media sites, they have failed to offer any proper basis for the disclosure, relying only on vague and generalized assertions that the information might contradict or conflict with plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress. Thus, the postings are not discoverable (see Tapp v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 102 AD3d 620 [1st Dept 2013]).

 

Lastly, defendants correctly assert that prior criminal convictions and pleas of guilty are relevant and discoverable (CPLR 4513; see also Sansevere v United Parcel Serv., 181 AD2d 521 [*2][1st Dept 1992]). However, "[a] youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense" (Criminal Procedure Law § 720.35[1]). Thus, defendants cannot compel disclosure of the details of a youthful offense, since that would "contravene[] the goals envisioned by the youthful offender policy" (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Bongiorno, 237 AD2d 31, 36, [2d Dept 1997]; see also Auto Collection, Inc. v C.P., 93 AD3d 621, 622 [2d Dept 2012]). Nothing in the record suggests that the evidence sought would serve as collateral estoppel to the claim, or is relevant in some other manner that would serve as an exception to that general rule (see Green v Montgomery, 95 NY2d 693 [2001]).

 

Motion to strike. Motion to quash

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

Jacobs v Johnston, 2012 NY Slip Op 05390 (2nd Dept. 2012)

Since the defendant moved to vacate the note of issue within the time prescribed for doing so pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(e), and clearly demonstrated that the case was not ready for trial, that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate the note of issue and, in effect, to compel the deposition of a nonparty witness should have been granted (see CPLR 2103[b][2]; Gallo v SCG Select Carrier Group, L.P., 91 AD3d 714; Tirado v Miller, 75 AD3d 153, 157). Furthermore, since the defendant timely moved to vacate the note of issue, he was required only to demonstrate why the case was not ready for trial, and was not required to establish that additional discovery was necessary because unusual or unanticipated circumstances had developed subsequent to the filing of the note of issue (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d], [e]; Mosley v Flavius, 13 AD3d 346; Rizzo v DeSimone, 287 AD2d 609, 610; Perla v Wilson, 287 AD2d 606; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 139).

In opposition to the plaintiff's cross motion to quash the subpoena served by the defendant upon the nonparty witness, the defendant demonstrated, inter alia, that the disclosure sought was relevant, material, and necessary to the defense of the action (see CPLR 3101[a][4]; Kondratick v Orthodox Church in Am., 73 AD3d 708, 709; Tenore v Tenore, 45 AD3d 571, 571-572; [*2]Thorson v New York City Tr. Auth., 305 AD2d 666; Maxwell v Snapper, Inc., 249 AD2d 374). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant did not waive his right to seek discovery from the nonparty witness by failing to raise an objection with respect thereto at the certification conference. Since the identity of the nonparty witness was not made known to the defendant until after the date of the certification conference, and the defendant timely moved to vacate the note of issue, the defendant could not be deemed to have waived his right to compel the nonparty witness to comply with the subpoena and to appear for a deposition (cf. Jones v Grand Opal Constr. Corp., 64 AD3d 543, 544; James v New York City Tr. Auth., 294 AD2d 471, 472). Accordingly, the plaintiff's cross motion to quash the subpoena should have been denied.

 

Discovery of claims file CPLR 3101

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

Ural v Encompass Ins. Co. of Am, 2012 NY Slip Op 05407 (2nd Dept. 2012)

With respect to the parties' discovery issues, CPLR 3101(a) broadly mandates "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." This provision is liberally interpreted in favor of disclosure (see Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 954; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Matter of Skolinsky, 70 AD3d 845; Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. v First Secured Capital Corp., 292 AD2d 515). However, the discovery sought must be relevant to the issues at bar, with the test employed being "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d at 406). Regarding an entire set of discovery demands which are "palpably improper in that they are overbroad, lack specificity, or seek irrelevant or confidential information, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it" (Bell v Cobble Hill Health Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d 620, 621). "The burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and it is not for the courts to correct a palpably bad one" (id. at 621 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the plaintiff's discovery demands included production of Encompass's entire claim file for the subject water damage. The plaintiff asserts that Encompass only produced part of the claim file. In response, Encompass asserts that it withheld only those parts of the claim file that were produced in anticipation of litigation and thus were protected by work product privilege (see Veras Inv. Partners, LLC v Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 52 AD3d 370). However, the party asserting the privilege that material sought through discovery was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation or constitutes attorney work product bears the burden of demonstrating that the material it seeks to withhold is immune from discovery (see Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294) by identifying the particular material with respect to which the privilege is asserted and establishing with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation (see Chakmakjian v NYRAC, Inc., 154 AD2d 644, 645; Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 145 AD2d 402). Here, Encompass's attorney's conclusory assertions were insufficient to satisfy this burden (see Bombard v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 647, 648; see also Agovino v Taco Bell 5083, 225 AD2d 569). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel Encompass to produce the documents contained in the plaintiff's claim file to the extent of directing Encompass to provide the Supreme Court with a detailed privilege log (see CPLR 3122; Clark v Clark, 93 AD3d 812), and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents.

Although Encompass also failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that certain discovery demands involved undiscoverable trade secrets (see Hunt v Odd Job Trading, 44 AD3d 714, 716), aside from the claim file, the remaining discovery demands were nevertheless palpably improper in that they were overbroad, lacked specificity, or sought irrelevant information. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel Encompass to comply with these discovery demands (see Bell v Cobble Hill Health Ctr., Inc., 22 AD3d at 621).

Under the circumstances of this case, Encompass was not entitled to a protective order (see CPLR 3103).