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
PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED DOWN WHEN MALL SHOPPERS PANICKED AND FLED BECAUSE A FALLING DISPLAY SOUNDED LIKE GUNSHOTS; QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE PANIC AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE PANIC PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE THE OWNERS AND SECURITY COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
CONDITIONAL ORDER DID NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Certification Order Requiring Filing of Note of Issue in 70, Rather than 90, Days Could Not Be Basis of Dismissal
ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 3 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PROHIBITS CONSIDERATION OF A NEW YORK JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSEMENT, CONSIDERATION OF A NEW JERSEY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IS NOT PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT HIRED BECAUSE HE TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA WHEN HE WAS UNDER TREATMENT WITH MARIJUANA; THAT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE REFEREE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF REFERENCE; SUPREME COURT’S RULINGS BASED UPON THE REFEREE’S ORDER WERE THEREFORE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
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...