You are here: / / Proper Procedure Where Ostensibly Relevant Documents Are Not Provided in...

Proper Procedure Where Ostensibly Relevant Documents Are Not Provided in Discovery Explained

The Second Department explained the proper procedure when ostensibly relevant documents requested in discovery are withheld. The remedy for failure to follow the correct procedure here was the creation of a privilege log and in camera review of the log:

Pursuant to CPLR 3122(b), “[w]henever a person is required . . . to produce documents for inspection, and where such person withholds one or more documents that appear to be within the category of the documents required . . . to be produced, such person shall give notice to the party seeking the production and inspection of the documents that one or more such documents are being withheld. This notice shall indicate the legal ground for withholding each such document, and shall provide the following information as to each such document, unless the party withholding the document states that divulgence of such information would cause disclosure of the allegedly privileged information: (1) the type of document; (2) the general subject matter of the document; (3) the date of the document; and (4) such other information as is sufficient to identify the document” (CPLR 3122).

Here, the defendant did not comply with the requirements of CPLR 3122(b), as it failed to identify the type of document being withheld, the general subject matter of each document, and the date of the document … . Under the circumstances of this case, the appropriate remedy for the defendant’s failure to produce an adequate privilege log is to allow the defendant to produce an adequate privilege log and, thereafter, for the Court of Claims to review in camera the allegedly privileged documents, along with the privilege log … . Stephen v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03505, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

 

You might also like
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LAWFUL BASIS FOR IMPOUNDING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND CONDUCTING AN INVENTORY SEARCH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE VACATION OF THE SENTENCE FOR THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 APPLIED ONLY TO HIGH-COST OR SUBPRIME LOANS WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED ON APPEAL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INJURED PARTY DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF HIS CLAIM, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO SATISFY DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.
THE MAJORITY HELD DEFENDANT, BY APPROACHING A JUROR AT THE JUROR’S HOME DURING DELIBERATIONS, FORFEITED HIS RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY A JURY OF 12; OVER A DEFENSE MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED BY A JURY OF 11 AND THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiffs’ Failure to Attend Depositions Warranted Dismissal of Comp... Forum Selection Clause in Nursing Home Admission Agreement Should Have Been...