Opinion
January 12, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The essence of the plaintiff's grievance concerns the allegation that his nursing services coverage was reduced from 80% to 50% without notice to himself or persons similarly situated. The plaintiff thereafter served a notice for discovery and inspection seeking discovery of virtually every claim-related complaint which the defendant received between the interval 1979 and 1985 based on the failure of the defendant to make payment for health services. Said request is patently overbroad inasmuch as it seeks documents relating to other reasons for the defendant insurer's failure to make payment for health care services besides the arbitrary reduction of a policyholder's private-duty nursing-care benefits. Clearly, much of the information sought in the plaintiff's notice for discovery and inspection is irrelevant to determine the prerequisites to class certification pursuant to CPLR 901 or to assess the feasibility considerations set forth in CPLR 902. The plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of files which do not relate to his particular type of grievance. Accordingly, the steps taken by Special Term to limit discovery were entirely proper (see, Chimenti v. American Express Co., 97 A.D.2d 351, 352, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 669; Smith v. Atlas Intl. Tours, 80 A.D.2d 762).
Moreover, the plaintiff's assertion of the law of the case doctrine is inapposite inasmuch as the May 9, 1985 order of Justice Doyle merely extended the time in which the plaintiff could move for class certification to a period 30 days from the completion of the requested discovery. The order should not be read to preclude the defendant from the proper exercise of its right to move for a protective order. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.