Editel, New York v. Liberty Studios, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1990
• Citation: Editel, New York v. Liberty Studios, Inc., 557 N.Y.S.2d 21, 162 A.D.2d 345 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
• Parties: EDITEL, NEW YORK, etc., Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY STUDIOS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Justin Crasto, Counterclaim Defendant-Respondent, Generoso Pope III, et al., Additional Defendants on Counterclaims.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 21

557 N.Y.S.2d 21

162 A.D.2d 345

EDITEL, NEW YORK, etc., Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY STUDIOS, INC., Defendant-Appellant Justin Crasto, Counterclaim Defendant-Respondent Generoso Pope III, et al., Additional Defendants on Counterclaims.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

June 26, 1990.

F.F. Greenman, for defendant-appellant.

D.J. Sullivan, for counterclaim defendant-respondent.

Before ROSS, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, ELLERIN and WALLACH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 12, 1988, which denied defendant Liberty Studios, Inc.'s motion a) for a protective order quashing the notice of discovery and inspection served by counterclaim defendant-respondent Justin Crasto and b) to strike Crasto's first set of interrogatories, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, the notice of discovery and inspection and the interrogatories are vacated, without prejudice to further appropriate discovery, with costs.

We agree with defendant Liberty Studios, Inc. that the notice of discovery and inspection served by counterclaim defendant Justin Crasto, which contained 48 numbered demands with numerous subparts, as well as its first set of 107 interrogatories, also containing numerous subparts, was overbroad and unduly burdensome, and that it was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to have denied Liberty's request to strike (Metzger v. Brockman, 92 A.D.2d 499, 459 N.Y.S.2d 95; Vancek v. International Dynetics Corp., 78 A.D.2d 842, 433 N.Y.S.2d 158).

Plaintiff, a video service company, brought this action against defendant, a production company, for payment for services rendered. In its answer, defendant asserted counterclaims against plaintiff and certain additional named defendants, including Crasto, for inducing breach of contract, defamation, unfair competition and interference with business relationships. Plaintiff and defendant thereafter stipulated to partial summary judgment being entered in plaintiff's favor, but agreed that all execution upon and enforcement of such judgment would be stayed until the counterclaims against plaintiff were determined.

Crasto's discovery notice contains 41 "designation" paragraphs demanding all documents "referring, reflecting or relating to any" settlement, statements, observations, communications, etc. and requires the production of every document created by any person or...