Opinion
2020–05160 Index No. 717443/17
05-10-2023
STAR AUTO SALES OF QUEENS, LLC, etc., appellant, v. Douglas FILARDO, et al., respondents.
Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success, NY (Jamie S. Felsen, Brett W. Joseph, and Jeremy M. Koufakis of counsel), for appellant. Tuchinsky Law Firm, P.C., Merrick, NY (Scott Woller and Dmitry Tuchinsky of counsel), for respondents.
Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success, NY (Jamie S. Felsen, Brett W. Joseph, and Jeremy M. Koufakis of counsel), for appellant.
Tuchinsky Law Firm, P.C., Merrick, NY (Scott Woller and Dmitry Tuchinsky of counsel), for respondents.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Marguerite A. Grays, J.), dated May 27, 2020. The order, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendants to fully respond to the plaintiff's first request for production of documents and first set of interrogatories and to produce a privilege log with respect to each discovery response for which the defendants asserted the attorney-client privilege, and vacated the plaintiff's first request for production of documents and first set of interrogatories.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, a car dealership, commenced this action alleging fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and related causes of action against the defendant Douglas Filardo, a sales manager who was employed by the plaintiff, and the defendant Subaru Motorsports, an entity created by Filardo. In July 2019, the plaintiff served its first request for production of documents and first set of interrogatories on the defendants. The defendants served their response in December 2019. In February 2020, the plaintiff moved to compel the defendants to (1) fully respond to each demand in the plaintiff's first request for production of documents and first set of interrogatories, and (2) produce a privilege log with respect to each discovery response for which the defendants asserted the attorney-client privilege. In an order dated May 27, 2020, the Supreme Court, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion and vacated the plaintiff's first request for production of documents and first set of interrogatories. The plaintiff appeals.
CPLR 3101(a) requires, in pertinent part, "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." A party, however, "is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure" ( Fox v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 202 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 159 N.Y.S.3d 874 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lombardi v. Lombardi, 190 A.D.3d 964, 966, 140 N.Y.S.3d 264 ). Where discovery demands are overbroad, lack specificity, or seek irrelevant or confidential information, they are palpably improper and may be stricken (see Fox v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 202 A.D.3d at 1062, 159 N.Y.S.3d 874 ; Lombardi v. Lombardi, 190 A.D.3d at 966, 140 N.Y.S.3d 264 ). "The burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and it is not for the courts to correct a palpably bad one" ( Fox v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 202 A.D.3d at 1062, 159 N.Y.S.3d 874 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lopez v. Huntington Autohaus, 150 A.D.2d 351, 352, 540 N.Y.S.2d 874 ). Thus, the appropriate remedy for an overbroad discovery demand is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it (see Fox v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 202 A.D.3d at 1062, 159 N.Y.S.3d 874 ; Lombardi v. Lombardi, 190 A.D.3d at 966, 140 N.Y.S.3d 264 ; Bennett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 189 A.D.3d 749, 750, 137 N.Y.S.3d 120 ). Furthermore, "[t]he supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court" ( U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Carter, 204 A.D.3d 727, 728–729, 166 N.Y.S.3d 650 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Berkowitz v. 29 Woodmere Blvd. Owners’, Inc., 135 A.D.3d 798, 799, 23 N.Y.S.3d 352 ).
Here, many of the plaintiff's discovery demands were palpably improper in that they were overbroad and burdensome, sought irrelevant or confidential information, or failed to specify with reasonable particularity what was demanded (see Fox v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 202 A.D.3d at 1062, 159 N.Y.S.3d 874 ; Lombardi v. Lombardi, 190 A.D.3d at 966, 140 N.Y.S.3d 264 ; Lopez v. Huntington Autohaus, 150 A.D.2d at 352, 540 N.Y.S.2d 874 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to compel the defendants to fully respond to its discovery demands, and vacated the plaintiff's overbroad demands in their entirety.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination.
DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, ZAYAS and WAN, JJ., concur.