![]() Duncan's and GCS's dealings with non-parties in other transactions are not relevant to determining what the parties intended in the contract in this case. The demands span the course of thirty-three years, and production of these documents will not reduce delay and prolixity, but rather increase it.ĭefendants apparently seek to establish a pattern or standard of lending agreements that Peter Duncan and GCS have previously entered into to attempt to illustrate that the Agreement at issue has deviated from GCS's usual pattern. However, as noted in the text, the motion would be denied even if the disclosure had been requested in a timely manner.ĭefendant's request for information about five unrelated loans and agreements with non-parties, which are not at issue in this case, will not sharpen the issues. In the circumstances, the Court finds that Defendants' revised requests were untimely. And then, it filed the instant motion without giving the other side a chance to respond to the demands and failed to comply with dispute resolution procedure of Rule 14. And then, it waited two weeks after a conference with the Court's law clerk to narrow the request. Defendants had ample time to complete depositions and document discovery in advance of the deadline, but instead chose to wait until the deadline to serve follow-up demands after Mr. As explained above, the Court granted two extensions of the discovery schedule, with the final end date for all discovery being February 15, 2019. The Court notes that Defendants have not complied with the letter (or spirit) of the Court's discovery rules. In sum, the right to disclosure, although broad, is not unlimited. Additionally, the request for this information must be appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information. The determination whether information is material and necessary hinges upon whether it will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The proper test is one of usefulness and reason. However, a party is not entitled to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure. The Court of Appeals has explained that the words material and necessary are to be interpreted liberally. The documents belatedly requested by Defendants are not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. 32418(U), denying a motion to compel because the discovery sought was not material and necessary, explaining: Merchants Hospitality Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op. ![]() On August 12, 2019, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in GCS Second Ave. Categories Commercial, Discovery/Disclosure Court Denies Motion to Compel Because Discovery Sought Not Material and Necessary
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |