Lexplug logoLexplug

Unnamed Case

Supreme Court, Orange County
No reporter information provided (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under New York's CPLR 3120(a)(1)(i), a notice to produce documents must identify the items sought with reasonable particularity. A request that uses broad, categorical descriptions such as 'all documents' is improper and subject to being vacated by the court.


Facts:

  • The plaintiff, Nagy, initiated a lawsuit against the defendant, Tomanelli.
  • Nagy's claims against Tomanelli were for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  • Nagy also asserted a claim for breach of contract against Tomanelli.
  • The underlying events and circumstances giving rise to these claims are not detailed in the court's opinion.

Procedural Posture:

  • Nagy (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Tomanelli (defendant) in the Supreme Court, Orange County, a trial-level court.
  • During the discovery phase, Tomanelli served Nagy with a notice to produce documents and a set of written interrogatories.
  • Nagy filed a motion asking the trial court to vacate (invalidate) both the notice to produce and the interrogatories.
  • The trial court (Special Term) granted Nagy's motion, but gave Tomanelli leave to serve new interrogatories.
  • Tomanelli (defendant-appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an intermediate appellate court, with Nagy as the plaintiff-respondent.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a notice to produce documents demanding 'all documents' within broad categories satisfy the 'reasonable particularity' requirement of CPLR 3120?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A notice to produce documents demanding 'all documents' within broad categories does not satisfy the 'reasonable particularity' requirement. CPLR 3120(a)(1)(i) explicitly requires that documents be specifically identified, and it is well-settled law that using descriptions like 'all documents' renders a notice improper. The court also found that the trial court acted within its discretion by striking overly broad and burdensome interrogatories in their entirety rather than attempting to prune them. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order but modified it to explicitly grant the defendant leave to serve a new, properly-formed notice to produce in addition to new interrogatories.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces a fundamental principle of civil discovery in New York: specificity is required. It serves as a clear warning against the use of lazy or overly aggressive 'shotgun' discovery requests. The ruling affirms the broad discretion of trial courts to manage the discovery process by striking improper demands entirely, rather than being required to redraft them for the parties. This promotes judicial efficiency and discourages parties from using discovery as a tool for harassment or as a 'fishing expedition' for unspecified information.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Unnamed Case (1985) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Unnamed Case