Opinion
October 17, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.).
The salient facts of this underlying breach of contract/defamation action are set forth in this Court's previous order dated June 20, 1989. (Mihalakis v. Cabrini Med. Center, 151 A.D.2d 345, lv dismissed 75 N.Y.2d 790; see also, Mihalakis v Committee of Interns Residents, 162 A.D.2d 371.)
Following service of plaintiff's first request for production of documents, defendants challenged most of the items requested on the grounds of relevancy, vagueness and confidential privilege. The IAS court granted defendants' motion for a protective order as to all of the challenged items. On appeal, plaintiff, pro se, seeks to compel production of all the requested items. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the relevancy of most of the discovery requests. Items 17, 18, 52, 71 and 72, however, are relevant to the underlying action, and defendants are directed to produce the requested information. As to item 57, defendants are directed to produce all materials which do not encompass the asserted attorney-client privilege, and to submit the challenged materials for in camera inspection within 30 days of notice of entry of this order. (See, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 157 A.D.2d 444.)
The courts are mindful of allowing pro se litigants some leeway to prosecute their actions. Under the circumstances surrounding this private tort action, however, no grounds exist to justify directing defendants to allow production and inspection to take place in plaintiff's home, or to direct defendants to absorb the copying costs.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.