NEEDED TO SHOW THAT THE REQUESTS WEREN’T TAILORED TO THE CLAIMS
In response to a letter application, and after all sides were heard, the New York County Supreme Court issued a status conference order which directed document production by the defendants. And when the judge later declined to reconsider that order, an appeal followed.
On its review, the Appellate Division, First Department, noted that the underlying order directed that the parties first “meet and confer IN GOOD FAITH [sic] … prior to raising any discovery issues with the court.” Apparently, that meeting did not occur, and served as a basis to deny the defendants’ reconsideration request.
And while Mount Sinai objected to the sheer volume of materials that needed to be produced to comply with the order, the AD1 didn’t think the “significant ‘hit count’” demonstrated that the request was improper. Absent a demonstration that the “substance of the discovery requests” wasn’t “tailored to the plaintiff’s allegations,” the underlying order was left undisturbed.
They needed to discover a different argument there, no?
# # #
DECISION