Opinion
Index 152094/2020
12-02-2021
ADAM VORE Plaintiff, v. SEAPORT GLOBAL HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
Joel M. Cohen, Judge
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64, 65 were read on this motion to COMPEL DISCOVERY
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 were read on this motion to COMPEL DISCOVERY
Plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to CPLR § 3124 compelling Defendant Seaport to produce: (a) documents concerning Seaport's (or any Seaport affiliate, principal, or officer) holdings of, and trading activity related to, UrtheCast Corp. (including buys, sells, transfers, borrowings, lending, hypothecations and derivatives thereof) from August 10, 2018 to present; (b) the separation agreement, if any, between Seaport and Daniel O. Conwill IV (with financial terms redacted); and (c) a detailed privilege log for limited time periods.
Requests (a) and (b) coincide with Plaintiff Document Request Nos. 14 and 15 (NYSCEF 77, at 6). Plaintiffs request for a detailed privilege log is moot as Defendant represents that is complying with this request.
Defendant objects to Plaintiffs request for documents concerning Seaport transactions with non-party UrtheCast on the ground that Plaintiffs theory of entitlement to that information is speculative and is simply an attempt to gain leverage in this action. Finally, Defendant objects to producing the separation agreement as Plaintiff has no grounds to demand any agreement between Seaport and its former Co-CEO and head of investment banking.
DISCUSSION
"New York has long favored open and far-reaching pretrial discovery. To a large extent, New York's open disclosure policy was intended to mark an end to the presentation of totally unexpected evidence and to substitute honesty and forthrightness for gamesmanship" (DiMichel v S. Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 184, 193 [1992]). CPLR 3101(a)(1) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof." It is well-settled that "[t]he material and necessary standard is to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing prolixity" (Reyes v Lexington 79th Corp., 149 A.D.3d 508, 509 [1st Dept 2017], citing Allen v Crow ell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406 [1968]).
"[C]ompeting interests must always be balanced; the need for discovery must be weighed against any special burden to be borne by the opposing party" (Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maint. Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 952, 954 [1998], quoting O'Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 N.Y.2d 521, 529 [1988]). CPLR 3122(a)(1) and the Commercial Rules require that objections to discovery requests "state with reasonable particularity the grounds for any objection to the production." Commercial Rule 1 l-e(b)(ii) requires a responding party to state "whether any documents or categories of documents are being withheld, and if so, which of the stated objections forms the basis for the responding party's decision to withhold otherwise responsive documents or categories of documents."
A. Seaport's Urthe Cast Trading Activity
Plaintiff has established that Seaport's UrtheCast trading activity may include evidence that is "material and necessary" to the prosecution of Plaintiff s claims. Accordingly, Defendant must produce non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs Document Request No. 14.
B. Mr. Conwill 's Separation Agreement
Plaintiffs motion to compel production of Mr. Conwill's Separation Agreement (Document Request No. 15) is granted in part. Defendant must produce portions of the agreement, if any, that relate to Plaintiff or his claims in this case. Defendant's general assertions in opposition to the motion do not exclude the possibility that such portions may exist.
C. Privilege Log
Finally, Plaintiff requests a detailed privilege log is moot, as Defendant represents that it is complying with Plaintiffs request (see NYSCEF 101 [Def Br. in opp. at 7-8]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Mot. Seq. 003) is denied without prejudice as moot because it was superseded by Mot. Seq. 004; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Mot. Seq. 004) is hereby granted with respect to Plaintiffs Document Request No. 14 and granted in part with respect to Document Request No. 15; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for a detailed privilege log is denied without prejudice as moot; it is further
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.