Latture v. Smith
| Decision Date | 07 April 2003 |
| Citation | 758 N.Y.S.2d 135,304 A.D.2d 534 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | BRIAN LATTURE, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JAMES T. SMITH, Previously Known as LL COOL J, et al., Appellant. |
Ordered that the order dated April 3, 2002, is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike the defendants' answer for failure to respond to the plaintiff's combined notices and demands for discovery dated February 28, 2001, "to the extent provided for in the order dated March 6, 2002," and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion, and (2) deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, denied that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was for a protective order except "to the extent provided for in the order dated March 6, 2002," and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion and striking in its entirety the plaintiff's combined notices and demands for discovery dated February 28, 2001; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellants.
Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, the order dated April 3, 2002, is appealable by the defendants as of right (see CPLR 5511). The order dated April 3, 2002, decided motions and cross motions which were fully submitted by the parties which concerned, insofar as is relevant here, two discovery disputes, to wit, the deposition of the defendants, and the plaintiff's combined notices and demands for discovery and the defendants' responses thereto.
Moreover, to the extent the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of the law of the case with respect to the rulings contained in the order dated April 3, 2002, that order is reviewable to determine whether the Supreme Court properly adhered to the prior order. The doctrine of law of the case does not apply to rulings, such as case management decisions, which are based on the discretion of the court (see People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 504-506 [2000]; Brothers v Bunkoff Gen. Contrs., 296 AD2d 764, 765 [2002]). In any event, the doctrine of the law of the case does not bind appellate courts and, therefore, this Court is not bound by the law of the case established by the order dated March 6, 2002 (see Keith v Schulman, 265 AD2d 380 [1999]; Fabbricatore v Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist., 259 AD2d 659 [1999]; Zappolo v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 117 AD2d 597 [1986]). Upon our review of the order dated April 3, 2002, the Supreme Court improperly adhered to the directives contained in the order dated March 6, 2002.
In denying the defendants' cross motion for a protective order except for the defendants' "personal and romantic correspondence," the Supreme Court ordered the production of virtually all of the defendants' business and financial records covering a 17-year period, from 1985 to the present, even though the allegations in the complaint concern the period 1990 to 1995, and concern a limited subject matter. In addition, the plaintiff's demand requested documents from 1988, and the Supreme Court erroneously broadened that period to 1985.
The plaintiff's document demand includes requests for documents that are irrelevant to this litigation, e.g., documents pertaining to all civil and criminal actions filed against the defendants. These documents have no bearing on the sole remaining cause of action in this litigation, that is, breach of an oral contract to pay for managerial services performed by the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff failed to justify his demand for certain confidential documents. Contrary to the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gutierrez v. Good Bar, LLC
...tax documents sought were privileged (see Levine v. City Med. Assocs., PC, 108 A.D.3d 746, 747, 970 N.Y.S.2d 257 ; Latture v. Smith, 304 A.D.2d 534, 536, 758 N.Y.S.2d 135 ), their objections of lack of materiality (see generally Leibowitz v. Babad, 175 A.D.3d 639, 106 N.Y.S.3d 380 ; Accent ......
-
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Dorfman
...on the discretion of the court (see Clark v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 23 A.D.3d 510, 511, 806 N.Y.S.2d 633 ; Latture v. Smith, 304 A.D.2d 534, 535, 758 N.Y.S.2d 135 ; Brothers v. Bunkoff Gen. Contrs., 296 A.D.2d 764, 765, 745 N.Y.S.2d 284 ). We also agree with the Supreme Court's de......
-
In re Eckert
...Even where some of the requests may be relevant, it is not the duty of the court to prune the requests (see Latture v. Smith , 304 A.D.2d 534, 536, 758 N.Y.S.2d 135 ). The party seeking disclosure has the burden of making a proper demand. It is not for the court to correct a palpably bad on......
-
Lawrence v. Kennedy
...44 A.D.3d 599, 600, 843 N.Y.S.2d 351; Bell v. Cobble Hill Health Ctr., Inc., 22 A.D.3d 620, 621, 804 N.Y.S.2d 362; Latture v. Smith, 304 A.D.2d 534, 536, 758 N.Y.S.2d 135). ...
-
Using Traditional Privileges
...tax practitioner” would include: attorneys, CPA’s, and actuaries. See §7525(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Latture v. Smith , 758 N.Y.S.2d 135 (N.Y.A.D. 2d Dep’t 2003). Tax returns are generally not discoverable unless there is a strong showing that the information is indispensable to the......
-
Using traditional privileges
...tax practitioner” would include: attorneys, CPA’s, and actuaries. See §7525(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Latture v. Smith , 758 N.Y.S.2d 135 (N.Y.A.D. 2d Dep’t 2003). Tax returns are generally not discoverable unless there is a strong showing that the information is indispensable to the......
-
Using Traditional Privileges
...tax practitioner” would include: attorneys, CPA’s, and actuaries. See §7525(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Latture v. Smith , 758 N.Y.S.2d 135 (N.Y.A.D. 2d Dep’t 2003). Tax returns are generally not discoverable unless there is a strong showing that the information is indispensable to the......