Baliva v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 29 September 2000 |
| Citation | 713 N.Y.S.2d 376,275 A.D.2d 1030 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | CHRISTINE BALIVA et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Hayes, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that defendant Max J. Van Benschoten sexually harassed Christine Baliva (plaintiff) while Van Benschoten and Baliva were employed by defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) and that State Farm was aware of Van Benschoten's behavior.
State Farm provided plaintiffs with only some of the requested items of discovery, contending that the remainder were protected by either the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. State Farm moved for the return of a document that had been inadvertently disclosed, and plaintiffs cross-moved for disclosure of approximately 70 documents listed on a privilege log, contending that "many of the documents" were not privileged. At oral argument on the motion and cross motion, plaintiffs limited the scope of their cross motion by requesting Plaintiffs' attorney reiterated that limitation when he stated that he wanted "every part of their privilege log except those that are notes of counsel."
Supreme Court erred in ordering State Farm to produce every document on the privilege log without conducting an in camera review and without regard to the limited scope of plaintiffs' cross motion.
It is well settled that the court has broad discretion over the discovery process (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; see also, Hawley v Hasgo Power Equip. Sales, 269 AD2d 804). Here, however, the court abused its discretion by ordering disclosure of allegedly privileged documents beyond the scope of plaintiffs' cross motion. Furthermore, the court erred in ordering production of the documents requested without conducting an in camera review. "[W]hether a particular document is or is not protected [by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine] is necessarily a fact-specific determination * * * most often requiring in camera review" (Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 378). We therefore modify the order by denying plaintiffs' cross motion, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the cross motion following an in camera review of the allegedly privileged documents and in light of the limited scope of plaintiffs' cross motion (see, Geary v Hunton & Williams, 245 AD2d 936, 939).
We reject the contention of State Farm that the court erred in denying its motion seeking the return of an allegedly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc.
...Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Holt Cargo Sys., 345 N.J.Super. 515, 785 A.2d 955, 958 (L.Div. 2000); Baliva v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 275 A.D.2d 1030, 713 N.Y.S.2d 376, 377 (2000). However, the decision whether to conduct an in camera review of documents claimed to be work product is d......
-
Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co. v. Client Server Direct, Inc.
...limited by the Drilling Parties (see generally Rawlins, 108 A.D.3d at 1195, 969 N.Y.S.2d 687 ; Baliva v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 275 A.D.2d 1030, 1031, 713 N.Y.S.2d 376 [4th Dept. 2000] ).It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by deny......
-
Baliva v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.
...rendered in this case. "It is well settled that the court has broad discretion over the discovery process" (Baliva v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 275 A.D.2d 1030, 1031; see generally, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406), and here the court did not abuse its discretion ......
-
Rickard v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 746
...Schindler v. City of New York, 134 A.D.3d 1013, 1014–1015, 22 N.Y.S.3d 134 [2d Dept. 2015] ; Baliva v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 275 A.D.2d 1030, 1031, 713 N.Y.S.2d 376 [4th Dept. 2000] ). We therefore reverse the order insofar as appealed from, vacate the first and second ordering pa......