Category: CPLR § 3101

Disclosure, lots of it

CPLR § 3126 Penalties for refusal to comply with order or to disclose

CPLR § 4504. Physician, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor and nurse

CPLR R. 3120 Discovery and production of documents and things for inspection, testing, copying or photographing

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

CPLR R. 3124 Failure to disclose; motion to compel disclosure

22 NYCRR 202.21 Note of issue and certificate of readiness

Congel v Malfitano, 2011 NY Slip Op 04406 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of his cross motion which was for leave to amend his answer to assert counterclaims pursuant to Partnership Law §§ 73 and 74. Although leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party (see CPLR 3025[b]), the motion should be denied where the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see Brooks v Robinson, 56 AD3d 406, 407; Scofield v DeGroodt, 54 AD3d 1017, 1018; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227). Here, the defendant's proposed amended counterclaims were patently devoid of merit.

CPLR 3101(a) provides for, inter alia, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." Although the phrase "material and necessary" must be "interpreted liberally" in favor of disclosure so long as the information sought meets the test of "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69-70), a party does not have the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (see Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v Sharf, 59 AD3d 408, 410; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531). Further, the Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see Spodek v Neiss, 70 AD3d 810, 810; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695; Cabellero v City of New York, 48 AD3d 727, 728).

On the defendant's prior appeal, this Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for, inter alia, further proceedings on the issue of damages caused to the plaintiffs by the defendant's wrongful dissolution of the Poughkeepsie Galleria Company Partnership, as well as a determination of the value of the defendant's interest in that partnership at the time of the wrongful dissolution (see Congel v Malfitano, 61 AD3d 810; Partnership Law § 69[2][c][II]). Given that the remaining issues to be resolved in this matter are narrow (see Partnership Law § 69[2][c][II]), the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the scope of discovery and providing for an expedited discovery schedule.

Thompson v Dallas BBQ, 2011 NY Slip Op 04451 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, "[a] court may strike an answer as a sanction if a defendant refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed'" (Mazza v Seneca, 72 AD3d 754, 754, quoting CPLR 3126). The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see CPLR 3126[3]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123; Bernal v Singh, 72 AD3d 716). The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is not appropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful and contumacious (see CPLR 3126[3]; Kyung Soo Kim v Goldmine Realty, Inc., 73 AD3d 709; Moray v City of Yonkers, 72 AD3d 766).

Here, there was no such clear showing that the defendants' conduct was willful and contumacious (see Dank v Sears Holding Mgt. Corp., 69 AD3d 557). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' answer.

Gille v Long Beach City School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 04202 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

While it is unclear whether the school district negligently lost or intentionally destroyed key evidence (see Denoyelles v Gallagher, 40 AD3d 1027; Baglio v St. John's Queens Hosp., 303 AD2d 341, 342-343), it is uncontested that the school district is unable to locate the window shade, the very instrumentality giving rise to the infant plaintiff's injuries. However, because the determination of spoliation sanctions is within the broad discretion of the trial court (see Iamiceli v General Motors Corp., 51 AD3d 635; Barnes v Paulin, 52 AD3d 754; Dennis v City of New York, 18 AD3d 599), the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for its determination of the cross motion on the merits (see American Fed. of School Adm'rs, AFL-CIO v Council of Adm'rs & Supervisors, 266 AD2d 417, 418; Polera Bldg. Corp. v New York School Constr. Auth., 262 AD2d 295).

Lopez v Retail Prop. Trust, 2011 NY Slip Op 04008 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court, in its discretion, may grant permission to conduct additional discovery after the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness where the moving party demonstrates that "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" developed subsequent to the filing requiring additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; see Wigand v Modlin, 82 AD3d 1213; Owen v Lester, 79 AD3d 992; Audiovox Corp. v Benyamini, 265 AD2d 135, 140). The compliance conference order dated February 17, 2010, warning the plaintiff that failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would result in dismissal of the action, did not mandate that all discovery be complete prior to the filing of the note of issue. Even though the defendant Kone, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), was impeding discovery, the plaintiff filed a conditional note of issue as directed by the compliance conference order. It was not until after the filing of the conditional note of issue that the defendant moved for a protective order with respect to the plaintiff's discovery requests, on the ground that they were untimely. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's cross motion to compel the defendant to comply with outstanding discovery should have been granted (see Karakostas v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 306 AD2d 381, 382; Schmitt v Carl Meyer's Hof, Inc., 86 AD2d 985).

Olkovetsy v Friedwald Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Nursing, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 04015 (App. Div. 2nd 2011)

Pursuant to CPLR 4504(a), information obtained by, among others, professional nursing personnel in attending to a patient in a professional capacity and "which [is] necessary to enable him [or her] to act in that capacity" is privileged. As a general rule, disclosure of the name and address of a nonparty patient who may have been a witness to an alleged act of negligence or malpractice does not violate the patient's privilege of confidentiality of treatment (see Rabinowitz v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 24 AD3d 530; Hirsch v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 91 AD2d 1033, 1034; see also Matter of Grand Jury Investigation in N.Y. County, 98 NY2d 525, 530-531), provided that the requesting party "is not seeking to identify the patient by reference to the medical treatment he [or she] received" (Matter of Seymour, 288 AD2d 894, 894).

Contrary to the defendants' contention, in light of the broad range of services provided in a nursing home, the information requested by the plaintiff did not fall within the ambit of CPLR 4504(a) (see generally Rabinowitz v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 24 AD3d 530; cf. Gunn v Sound Shore Med. Ctr. of Westchester, 5 AD3d 435, 437). Additionally, the information demanded by the plaintiff was necessary to the prosecution of the action and, as limited by the Supreme Court to the period from January 1, 2005, through February 28, 2005, and to only the residents of the decedent's particular unit of residency, the demand was not overly broad or unduly burdensome (see Grant v PALJR, LLC, 64 AD3d 750, 751).

Trueforge Global Mach. Corp. v Viraj Group., 2011 NY Slip Op 04040 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10). "[I]n a contract action[,] a memorandum sufficient to meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds must contain expressly or by reasonable implication all the material terms of the agreement, including the rate of compensation if there has been agreement on that matter" (Morris Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d 569, 575; see Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d 372, 378-379). "If an agreement is not reasonably certain in its material terms, there can be no legally enforceable contract" (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482, cert denied 498 US 816; see Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109). Thus, "a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable" (Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d at 109; see 2004 McDonald Ave. Realty, LLC v 2004 McDonald Ave. Corp., 50 AD3d 1021; Andor Group v Benninghoff, 219 AD2d 573). Further, while General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(10) applies to contracts implied in law to pay reasonable compensation (see Snyder v Bronfman, 13 NY3d 504), in an action to recover reasonable compensation, "a sufficient memorandum need only evidence the fact of plaintiff's employment by defendant to render the alleged services" (Morris Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d at 575-576)."The obligation of the defendant to pay reasonable compensation for the services is then implied" (id. at 576). Contrary to the defendants' contention, they failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the statute of frauds, as certain e-mail correspondence (see General Obligations Law § 5-701[b][4]; Newmark & Co. Real Estate Inc. v 2615 E. 17 St. Realty LLC, 80 AD3d 476, 477; see also Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d at 379; Aloisi v Coin Phones, 157 AD2d 688) was sufficient to set forth an objective standard for determining the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff as a finder's fee, since it was tied to an extrinsic event, i.e., it was expressed as a percentage of the price paid by the defendants for the located acquisition opportunity, thus rendering the terms definite and enforceable (see Tonkery v Martina, 78 NY2d 893; Novello v 215 Rockaway, LLC, 70 AD3d 909; Edge Mgt. Corp. v Crossborder Exch. Corp., 304 AD2d 422; cf. MP Innovations, Inc. v Atlantic Horizon Intl., Inc., 72 AD3d 571).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting, upon reargument, the plaintiff's motion to compel a deposition of nonparty Neeraj Kochhar. "[A] corporation has the right in the first instance to determine which of its representatives will appear for an examination before trial" (Barone v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 AD2d 417, 417-418; see Aronson v Im, 81 AD3d 577, 577; Nunez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 71 AD3d 967; Mercado v Alexander, 227 AD2d 391). The moving party that is seeking additional depositions has the burden of demonstrating "(1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case" (Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626, 627; see Thristino v County of Suffolk, 78 AD3d 927; Spohn-Konen v Town of Brookhaven, 74 AD3d 1049; Seattle Pac. Indus., Inc. v Golden Val. Realty Assoc., 54 AD3d 930, 932-933; Nazario v City of New York, 27 AD3d 439; Barone v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 AD2d at 418). Here, the plaintiff satisfied this burden by demonstrating that the representative produced by the defendants for deposition did not have sufficient knowledge of the events giving rise to the complaint (see Nunez v Chase Manhattan Bank, 71 AD3d 967), and that there was a substantial likelihood that Neeraj Kochhar possessed information which was material and necessary to the issue of whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment of a finder's fee (see Nazario v City of New York, 27 AD3d 439; cf. Seattle Pac. Indus., Inc. v Golden Val. Realty Assoc., 54 AD3d at 932-933).

Waiver

Fernandez v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 04111 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Plaintiff has waived her claim that defendants' failure to produce "legible" photographs of the underside of the desk after the accident required an adverse inference that such photographs would have provided notice. The record shows that she was aware of the photographs yet filed a note of issue certifying that discovery was complete (see Escourse v City of New York, 27 AD3d 319 [2006]). In any event, the photographs would not have been probative as to notice, since the track was not visible until after the drawer fell.

The perils of social networking and other discovery issues

In this case, nothing came of it, but it remains dangerous to those who are unaware.  Turk wrote about it too.

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

Abrams v Pecile. 2011 NY Slip Op 03108 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

In this action for, among other things, conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff alleges that defendant, a former employee of plaintiff's husband, retained, without permission, a copy of a CD containing seminude photographs of plaintiff taken by her husband during their honeymoon. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant refused to return the CD and photographs unless plaintiff's husband paid defendant $2.5 million to settle her sexual harassment claims brought against plaintiff's husband and his brother.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in ordering plaintiff to comply with the outstanding discovery demands. With respect to defendant's demand for access to plaintiff's social networking accounts, no showing has been made that "the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims" (Vyas v Campbell, 4 AD3d 417, 418 [2004][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also McCann v Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 78 AD3d 1524, 1525 [2010]). Because plaintiff admits that she has copies of the photographs contained on the subject CD, defendant has also failed to show that she needs access to plaintiff's hard drive in order to defeat plaintiff's conversion claim. Nor has defendant shown that broad discovery concerning plaintiff's finances, education, immigration status, and educational background is "material and necessary" (CPLR 3101[a]).

With respect to defendant's demand for materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, defendant has failed to show "substantial need" for the materials or that she is "unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means" (Santariga v McCann, 161 AD2d 320, 321-322 [1990]; see CPLR 3101[d][2]). Further, defendant is not entitled to privileged communications between plaintiff and her prior counsel (see CPLR 4503[a]).

Discovery of materials concerning plaintiff's family and her husband's business should be obtained through nonparty discovery pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4).

Defendant's remaining discovery demands are either overbroad or irrelevant.

JFK Family Ltd. Partnership v Millbrae Natural Gas Dev. Fund 2005, L.P., 2011 NY Slip Op 03211 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

No appeal lies as of right from an order denying an application to direct a witness to respond to questions posed during the course of a deposition (see McGuire v Zarlengo, 250 AD2d 823, 824; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d 318, 320). However, this Court may deem the plaintiffs' notice of appeal from such an order to be an application for leave to appeal, and grant leave to appeal (see McGuire v Zarlengo, 250 AD2d at 824; Mann v Alvarez, 242 AD2d at 320), and we do so here. 

CPLR 3101(a) requires, in pertinent part, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." Generally, CPLR 3101 is to be construed liberally in favor of disclosure, so long as the information sought meets the test of "usefulness and reason" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406, 406-407; see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69-70). However, the principle of "full disclosure" does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531). Moreover, the Supreme Court has broad discretion over the supervision of disclosure, and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion (Spodek v Neiss, 70 AD3d 810, 810; Reilly Green Mtn. Platform Tennis v Cortese, 59 AD3d 694, 695; Cabellero v City of New York, 48 AD3d 727, 728; Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d at 531). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's denial of those branches of the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 which were to compel the defendants to disclose certain documentary evidence and its grant of those branches of the defendants' cross motion which were for a protective and confidentiality order as to certain evidence sought through discovery, were provident exercises of its discretion.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions, including those referable to their application to compel deposition witnesses to respond to certain questions, are without merit.

Taylor v New York City Hous. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 03229 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

"[N]o appeal as of right lies from an order directing a party to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial" (Nappi v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 31 AD3d 509, 510-511 see Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 69). An order deciding "a motion to compel a witness to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial is akin to a ruling made in the course of the examination itself and as such is not appealable as of right even where it was made upon a full record and on the defendant's motion to compel responses" (Singh v Villford Realty Corp., 21 AD3d 892, 893 [citations omitted]; see Daniels v Fairfield Presidential Mgt. Corp., 43 AD3d 386, 387; Cedrone v Bon Secours Community Hosp., 31 AD3d 596). The plaintiffs have not sought leave to appeal, and there is nothing in the record that would warrant granting leave to appeal on the Court's own motion (see Daniels v Fairfield Presidential Mgt. Corp., 43 AD3d at 387).

W&W Glass, LLC v 1113 York Ave. Realty Co. LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op 02786 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

 

The record fails to support the motion court's determination that defendants' failure to comply with discovery obligations was willful, or in bad faith (see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219 [2010]; Banner v New York City Hous. Auth., 73 AD3d 502 [2010]. Absent such showing, the motion court erred in imposing the "harshest available penalty" against defendants (see Basset v Bando Sangsa Co., 103 AD2d 728, 728 [1984]).

Finally, we note that the record discloses no evidence of defendants' repeated failures to comply with the court's discovery orders. Indeed, there appear to be no prior motions by plaintiff to compel disclosure, rendering any motion to strike the answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 premature in this case.

The bold is mine.

3101; 3103; Common Interest Priv.

CPLR  3101 Scope of disclosure

Ford v Rector, Church-Wardens, Vestrymen of Trinity Church in the City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 01064 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

While defendants' discovery request for all plaintiff's home and cellular telephone records dating from six years before the sending of the anonymous faxes that purportedly led to her termination was overly broad and unnecessarily burdensome, the denial of the request in its entirety was inappropriate, given defendants' showing of the need for the discovery. Defendants allege that plaintiff was terminated not in retaliation for commencing a discrimination suit but because of her involvement in the sending of certain anonymous faxes and her dishonesty during the investigation into the sending of the faxes. Plaintiff asserts that she does not know the person who allegedly caused the faxes to be sent. However, there is documentary evidence suggesting that he is her brother-in-law. Thus, we conclude that plaintiff's telephone records, as circumscribed above, for the year preceding the sending of the faxes are "material and necessary" to the defense of this action (CPLR 3101[a]; see Anonymous v High School for Envtl. Studies, 32 AD3d 353, 358 [2006]).

Contrary to defendants' contention, production of the remainder of the information  requested should not be compelled, despite plaintiff's untimely objection to the request (Lea v New York City Tr. Auth., 57 AD3d 269 [2008]; Haller v North Riverside Partners, 189 AD2d 615, 616 [1993]).

American Bank Note Corp. v Daniele, 2011 NY Slip Op 01063 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

Finally, there was no error in permitting defendants to testify at the hearing by means of a live video conference link from Argentina. First, the court quashed the subpoena plaintiffs had originally served on defendants and plaintiffs did not challenge this ruling on appeal. Thus, defendants' appearance via video conference was voluntary. Further, plaintiffs fully participated in that hearing.

Pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), the court may regulate "any disclosure device" in order to "prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice. . . " The decision to allow a party or witness to testify via video conference link is left to a trial court's discretion (People v Wrotten, 14 NY3d 33, 37-38 [2009] cert denied __ US __, 130 S Ct 2520 [2010]).

Here, defendant Daniele had not made travel arrangements to come to the United States. There was also a question of whether he could lawfully leave Argentina because of charges plaintiffs filed against him in that country. Thus, coming to New York to testify was "not feasible as a practical matter" (Matter of Singh, 22 Misc 3d 288, 290 (Sup Ct, Bronx County [*2]2008), and would have resulted in hardship (Rogovin v Rogovin, 3 AD3d 352, 353 [2004]). Accordingly it was proper to allow defendants to testify from Argentina via video conferencing.

Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v Corning Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 01061 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

In this action seeking a declaratory judgment establishing entitlement to insurance coverage for defense and/or indemnification, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the subject documents produced (see Ulico Cas. Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 1 AD3d 223, 224 [2003]). The motion court properly held that Corning failed to establish that the subject documents were protected by the common interest privilege. While Corning asserted that the documents were "generated in furtherance of a common legal interest" between itself and the committees in the bankruptcy action and that the documents included, communications evincing strategy and preparation for an upcoming confirmation hearing, it submitted no evidence in support of these assertions. Moreover, Corning never stated, let alone established, that it or the committees had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality with respect to these communications. Accordingly, Corning failed to establish that the relevant communications with the committees were in furtherance of a common legal interest and that with respect to these communications, Corning and the committees had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality (see United states v Schwimmer, 892 F2d 237, 243-244 [2d Cir 1989]; In re [*2]Quigley Company, Inc., 2009 Bankr LEXIS 1352, 8-9 [Bankr SD NY 2009].

Yu Hui Chen v Chen Li Zhi, 2011 NY Slip Op 01267 (App. Div., 2nd 2011)

While depositions of parties to an action are generally held in the county where the action is pending (see CPLR 3110[1]), if a party demonstrates that conducting his or her deposition in that county would cause undue hardship, the Supreme Court can order the deposition to be held elsewhere (see Gartner v Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc., 68 AD3d 815; LaRusso v Brookstone, Inc., 52 AD3d 576, 577). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) directing that his deposition be conducted by remote electronic means. The plaintiff demonstrated that traveling from China to the United States for his deposition would cause undue hardship (see Gartner v Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc., 68 AD3d at 815-816; Wygocki v Milford Plaza Hotel, 38 AD3d 237; Rogovin v Rogovin, 3 AD3d 352, 353; Matter of Singh, 22 Misc 3d 288; see also Hoffman v Kraus, 260 AD2d 435, 437; cf. Matter of Albarino, 27 AD3d 556).

In light of our determination that the plaintiff's deposition may be conducted by remote electronic means, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in staying all proceedings in the action until the plaintiff could return to the United States for his deposition.

 

Overbroad discovery demands

CPLR § 4504. Physician, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor and nurse

Azznara v Strauss, 2011 NY Slip Op 00634 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

Although the plaintiff's pharmacy and health insurance records may properly be discovered (see CPLR 4504; Neferis v DeStefano, 265 AD2d 464, 466; Moore v Superior Ice Rink, 251 AD2d 305), the defendants' demand with respect to those two items, as currently propounded, is patently overbroad and burdensome (see Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531; Bongiorno v Livingston, 20 AD3d 379, 382; Bettan v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 296 AD2d 469, 471; Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721, 722). Accordingly, that branch of the defendants' motion which was to compel the plaintiff to provide authorizations for the release of all of his pharmacy and health insurance records was properly denied.

 

The bold is mine.

Late Expert: CPLR 3101(d)

CPLR § 3101(d) Trial Preparation (2) Materials

Campos v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 2011 NY Slip Op 00344 (App. Div., 2nd 2011) 

The expert witness disclosure required by CPLR 3101(d) was served by the plaintiff 6½ years after the incidents complained of, 4 years after the action was commenced, almost 4 years after the original bill of particulars was served, and 1½ years after the amended bill of particulars was served. The expert witness disclosure contained new theories of liability which were not readily discernable from the allegations set forth in the bills of particulars. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to preclude the plaintiff's expert and any other witnesses called by the plaintiff from testifying concerning certain unpleaded allegations relating to the defendants' alleged malpractice in, inter alia, leaving the patient, Hilda Campos, unattended, leaving the bed rails of her bed down, and allowing her to fall out of her hospital bed onto the floor (see Navarette v Alexiades, 50 AD3d 869, 870;Navarette v Alexiades, 50 AD3d 872, 872; Durant v Shuren, 33 AD3d 843, 844). 

CPLR § 3101 (facebook/myspace)

CPLR  3101 Scope of disclosure

Lentz v Nic's Gym Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06620 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

CPLR 3101(a) is to be construed liberally so that there should be disclosure of any material that is even arguably relevant (see Shanahan v Bambino, 271 AD2d 519). However, "unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court's broad discretion" (Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460, 461 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Silcox v City of New York, 233 AD2d 494). The essential test is one based on "usefulness and reason" (Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to direct the defendant to allow the plaintiff to inspect the gym mats which allegedly caused her to fall and sustain injuries, and in denying the defendant's cross motion for a protective order.

And here is a recent decision on interweb discovery. Look for many more in the future. 

Romano v Steelcase Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 06620 (Supreme Court, Suffolk County 2010)

The present application was brought on by Order to Show Cause. The Court has reviewed the submissions both in favor of and in opposition to the relief sought, as well as the applicable federal statutory law, specifically the Stored [*2]Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. ¶ 2701 et seq., which prohibits an entity, such as Facebook and MySpace from disclosing such information without the consent of the owner of the account (see, 18 U.S.C. ¶ 2702(b)(3); Flagg v City of Detroit, 252 FRD 352 [ED Mich 2008]).

You can read more over at NFP.

On Discovery

 These are some of the leftover cases from last week and maybe one or two
from this week.

CPLR
§ 3126 Penalties for refusal to
comply with order or to disclose

Cobenas v Ginsburg Dev. Cos., LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 05718 (App. Div.,
2nd, 2010)

In the absence of evidence that
the appellant willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for an examination
before trial, the Supreme Court should not have stricken his answer (see Cambry v Lincoln
Gardens, 50 AD3d 1081; Conciatori v Port
Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 46 AD3d 501). The appropriate
remedy was to preclude the appellant from offering any testimony at trial (see Patel v DeLeon,
43 AD3d 432; Williams v Ryder, TRS,
Inc., 29 AD3d 784).

22 NYCRR 202.17 Exchange
of medical reports in personal injury and wrongful death actions

Shichman v Yasmer, 2010 NY Slip Op 05751 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

The defendant here met his initial
burden of establishing his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, which
the plaintiffs do not dispute on appeal. In opposition to the defendant's
motion, the plaintiffs principally relied on their expert's affidavit. However,
as the defendant argued and the Supreme Court found, the plaintiffs failed to
satisfy their obligations pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.17 to serve the defendant
with a report concerning their expert's physical examination of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in
precluding so much of the plaintiffs' expert's affidavit as was derived from
the expert's physical examination of the plaintiff (see Neils v Darmochwal, 6 AD3d 589, 590). However, under the
circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its
discretion in precluding the plaintiffs' expert's opinions in the affidavit
which were based on other evidence in the case ( id.). Based on a review of the affidavit, it is clear that the
expert's opinions derived from other sources were not "inextricably
intertwined" with his or her opinions derived from the physical
examination of the plaintiff (id.).
The expert's opinion, with regard to certain conclusions, was not dependent or
based upon the physical examination. For example, the expert's conclusion that
the defendant deviated from accepted podiatric practice by performing the
procedures at issue at the neck of the first metatarsal rather than at the head
of the first metatarsal, as proper practice allegedly demanded, was based,
inter alia, on the defendant's own deposition testimony as well as the expert's
expertise.

 

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

(a)
Generally.
There shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in
the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of
proof, by…

(d) Trial preparation

Spohn-Konen v Town of Brookhaven, 2010 NY Slip Op 05382 (App. Div., 2nd,
2010)

While CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full
disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an
action" (see Allen v Crowell-Collier
Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406),
"unlimited disclosure is not permitted" (Harris v Pathmark Stores, Inc, 48
AD3d 631, 632 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see
Silcox v City of New York, 233
AD2d 494, 494). CPLR 3103(a) provides that a court may issue a protective order
denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating the use of any disclosure
device, in order to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment,
disadvantage, or other prejudice to the other party.

 

To show that additional depositions are necessary, it must be
demonstrated (1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient
knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) that there is a substantial
likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is
material and necessary to the prosecution of the case (see Nazario v City of New York, 27
AD3d 439; Hayden v City of New York, 26
AD3d 262; Saxe v City of New York, 250
AD2d 751, 752; Carter v New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 AD2d 512; Zollner
v City of New York, 204 AD2d
626, 627). Since the plaintiff failed to sustain her burden of demonstrating
these two elements, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion
for a protective order (see
Sladowski-Casolaro v World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 AD3d 803, 803-804; Barone
v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260
AD2d 417, 417-418; Saxe v City of New York, 250 AD2d at 752). 

 

Green v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y, 2010 NY Slip Op 05327 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

 

One reason it is so troubling that plaintiff was prejudiced in
this manner is that the situation defense counsel was attempting to solve with
his sudden introduction of an expert witness was of his own making. It arose
from defense counsel's litigation decision to use Mr. Green's treating
internist, Dr. Robert Bos, on his direct case to establish that Mr. Green had
been suicidal. Plaintiff did nothing to create the predicament in which the
defense found itself. Since the burden was always on defendant to overcome the
presumption and prove that Mr. Green committed suicide, and plaintiff had no
burden on the issue, defendant cannot possibly point to plaintiff's not calling
an expert to justify defendant's initial decision not to call its own expert.

 

The last decision is far longer than this blurb would suggest.  It’s worth reading.

No Unfettered Disclosure; CPLR § 3101

CPLR § 3101 Scope of disclosure

Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 2010 NY Slip Op 05509 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

CPLR 3101(a) requires "full disclosure of all matter material and
necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." "The phrase
material and necessary' should be interpreted liberally to require
disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which
will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing
delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason'" (Friel
v Papa, 56 AD3d 607, 608, quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ.
Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406). A party, however, does not have the right to
"uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure" (Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v
Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531; see Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v
International Bus. Machs. Corp., 76 AD2d 873). " It is incumbent on
the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery
sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on
the claims'" (Vyas v Campbell, 4 AD3d 417, 418, quoting Crazytown
Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d 420, 421).

"The Supreme Court has broad discretion in the supervision of
discovery, and its determinations should not be disturbed on appeal
unless improvidently made" (Casabona v Huntington Union Free School
Dist., 29 AD3d 723, 723; see Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94
NY2d 740, 746; Milbrandt & Co., Inc. v Griffin, 19 AD3d 663;
Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v Brittenham, 284 AD2d 518).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in
concluding, inter alia, that the additional discovery sought by the
appellants was neither material nor necessary to the prosecution or
defense of any claim (see CPLR 3101[a]; Casabona v Huntington
Union Free School Dist., 29 AD3d 723; Vyas v Campbell, 4 AD3d
417; Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460).

The bold is mine.

[updated 6/27/10:  I added links to Vyas and Crazytown].

Substitution of Experts: CPLR § 3101(d)

CPLR § 3101(d) Trial Preparation

Maddaloni Jewelers, Inc. v Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 04454 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in
denying defendant's motion for preclusion. Although defendant may have
incurred expenses in preparing a rebuttal to plaintiff's initial
expert's report, there was no indication that plaintiff's substitution
of its expert was willful or prejudicial to defendant (see Gallo v
Linkow, 255 AD2d 113, 117 [1998]). The record demonstrates that the
case had been already been delayed due to defense counsel's surgery and
was again delayed because of a change of Justices assigned to the case.
Plaintiff's service of its substitution of experts was neither done on
the eve of trial nor at the last-minute, as no trial date was set at the
time the substituted expert was hired (see e.g. Mateo v 83 Post Ave. Assoc., 12 AD3d 205,
205-206 [2004]). Furthermore, even assuming that plaintiff was required
to show "good cause" (CPLR 3101[d][1][i]), its proffered reason for the
substitution of experts, namely, the breakdown in its relationship with
its former expert, sufficiently established such "good cause" (compare Lissak v Cerabona, 10 AD3d 308,
309-310 [2004]).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in refusing
to award legal fees and costs attributable to the substitution of the
expert. "An award of attorneys' fees as a direct remedy must be based on
contract or statute" or where there is established wrongdoing (City
of New York v Zuckerman, et al., 234 AD2d 160 [1st Dept 1996], app
dismissed 90 NY2d 845 [1997]). While a party may be ordered to bear
the cost of his or her adversary's rebuttal expert where a party fails
to disclose the substance of the expert's testimony in accordance with
CPLR 3101 and where the matter is on for trial (see St. Hilaire v
White, 305 AD2d 209 [2003]), here, plaintiff's notice of
substitution of its expert was offered months before the action was
scheduled [*2]for trial, and there is no
showing that plaintiff acted improperly in attempting to substitute
experts.

The bold is mine.

CPLR 3101(a)(4) Non-Party disclosure. App. Div., 2nd. Non-party subpoena quashed.

On May 7th I posted a case where the Appellate Division, Second Department found that a parties non-party subpoenas were proper.  Today, in an unusually long decision, the same court came to a different conclusion.  It's a long decision.  Read it anyway.

Kooper v Kooper, 2010 NY Slip Op 04147 (App. Div., 2nd, 2010)

On this appeal we consider principles governing the discovery of
documents from nonparties pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4), which provides
that the party seeking disclosure must give notice stating "the
circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required" from the
nonparty. Specifically, the question arises whether a party must
establish the existence of "special circumstances" warranting discovery
from a nonparty in order to successfully oppose a motion to quash a
subpoena duces tecum served on that nonparty. Many of our cases
continued to apply that standard after CPLR 3101(a)(4) was amended to
remove the requirement that discovery from a nonparty be obtained only
"where the court on motion determines that there are adequate special
circumstances." We hereby disapprove the further application of the
"special circumstances" standard in this context. We, nevertheless, look
behind that language in our cases and find underlying considerations
which are appropriate and relevant to the trial court's exercise of its
discretion in determining whether a request for discovery from a
nonparty should go forward or be quashed. Here, the Supreme Court
providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion
to quash the subpoenas at issue.

The bold is mine.