Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corp.
1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11116, 209 A.D.2d 228, 618 N.Y.S.2d 632 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Even after the amendment to New York's CPLR 3120, which eliminated the requirement for 'specific' designation of documents, a discovery demand may be vacated if it is a 'vast categorical demand' that is unduly burdensome and constitutes an abuse of the discovery process.
Facts:
- This case arose from an underlying legal dispute between a plaintiff and defendants.
- The nature of the dispute required the plaintiff to seek evidence from the defendants' records.
- The dispute was complex enough to involve a large volume of potentially relevant documents.
- The plaintiff sought to obtain these documents to support its legal claims against the defendants.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Defendants in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, which is a trial-level court.
- During the discovery phase of litigation, Plaintiff served Defendants with a 'notice for discovery and inspection' to obtain documents.
- Defendants filed a motion for a protective order, asking the trial court to vacate (cancel) the Plaintiff's discovery notice as improper.
- The trial court (Tom, J.) granted the Defendants' motion, vacating the notice but giving Plaintiff leave to serve a new, proper notice.
- Plaintiff, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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 broad, categorical demand for documents, served after the amendment to CPLR 3120, constitute an improper and unduly burdensome abuse of the discovery process that can be vacated by a protective order?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A broad, categorical demand for documents can be an improper and unduly burdensome abuse of discovery. While the court acknowledged the recent amendment to CPLR 3120, which removed the requirement to 'specifically' designate documents, it held that this change does not permit unlimited or abusive discovery. The court warned that a 'vast categorical demand for documents' can become a 'new kind of abuse.' It looked to federal practice for guidance, noting that even where categorical demands are permitted, they must still be relevant, describe documents with 'reasonable particularity,' avoid imposing an undue burden, and not be a mere 'fishing expedition.' Because the plaintiff's notice was deemed unduly burdensome, the lower court's decision to vacate it was proper.
Analysis:
This decision serves as an important judicial limitation on a legislative amendment intended to liberalize discovery. It clarifies that the removal of the 'specifically' designated requirement in CPLR 3120 was not intended to open the floodgates to abusive, overly broad discovery demands. The court effectively imported a reasonableness standard, similar to that used in federal courts, to police state-level discovery. This case establishes that trial courts retain their gatekeeping function to prevent discovery from becoming a tool of harassment by striking down categorical demands that are unduly burdensome, thereby ensuring that the discovery process remains proportional and fair.
