You are here: / / Conclusory Affidavit Insufficient to Meet Burden of Demonstrating Documents...
,

Conclusory Affidavit Insufficient to Meet Burden of Demonstrating Documents Were Privileged Because the Documents Were Prepared Solely In Anticipation of Litigation—Motion for a Protective Order Limiting Discovery Properly Denied

The Second Department determined the appellants were not entitled to a protective order precluding discovery of documents pursuant to CPLR 3103.  The appellants argued the documents were privileged because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation.  However, the conclusory attorney affidavit offered in support of the protective order did not meet the appellants’ burden to demonstrate the specific documents sought were “prepared solely in anticipation of litigation or trial…”:

CPLR 3101(a) mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” Unlimited disclosure is not mandated, however, and a court may issue a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device “to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts” (CPLR 3103[a]…). “The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed” … .

In support of that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order preventing the disclosure of certain witness statements and certain investigation and inspection reports, the appellants contended that such evidence was privileged as it was prepared in anticipation of litigation (see CPLR 3101[d][2]). “The burden of proving that a statement is privileged as material prepared solely in anticipation of litigation or trial is on the party opposing discovery” … . Such burden is met “by identifying the particular material with respect to which the privilege is asserted and establishing with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation” … .

Here, the appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the requested material was prepared solely in anticipation of litigation and, therefore, is protected from disclosure by the qualified immunity privilege of CPLR 3101(d)(2). An attorney’s affirmation containing conclusory assertions that requested materials are conditionally immune from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(2) as material prepared in anticipation of litigation, without more, is insufficient to sustain a party’s burden of demonstrating that the materials were prepared exclusively for litigation … . Ligoure v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04456, 2nd Dept 5-27-15

 

You might also like
LESSEE DID NOT MOVE FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WITHIN THE CURE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE LEASE, SUPREME COURT NO LONGER HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT A FINDING THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON FAILED TO PROPERLY DISCHARGE HER DUTIES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE GUARDIAN TO PAY THE ACCOUNTANT WHO ASSISTED IN PREPARING THE FINAL ACCOUNT FROM HER OWN FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
Hospital Generally Not Liable for Negligence of Private Attending Physician.
BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
RELEASE, WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER FUTURE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE FIRST ADMISSION TO THE HOSPITAL, DID NOT COVER A MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM A SECOND ADMISSION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Single Step Was Open and Obvious
THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS, INCLUDING PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Medical Examiner’s Testimony Did Not Rule Out the Possibility that Someone... Sole Officer of Dissolved Corporation Personally Liable for Post-Dissolution...