Summary
holding that, when requesting tax returns, there must be a strong necessity demonstrated in order to overcome the confidentiality of such information
Summary of this case from Pepper v. NYU Hospitals Ctr.Opinion
June 26, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
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; Vancek v International Dynetics Corp., 78 A.D.2d 842).
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 organization, past or present, relating to anything alleged in any of the counterclaims. Such request would include vast amounts of irrelevant material and is overbroad, vague and unduly burdensome (CPLR 3120; Craig v New York Tel. Co., 123 A.D.2d 580). The document also seeks Liberty's income tax returns from January 1977 without demonstrating the "strong showing of overriding necessity" to overcome the confidentiality of such information (Matthews Indus. Piping Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 114 A.D.2d 772; A. Colish, Inc. v. Abramson, 150 A.D.2d 210). The interrogatories are also overbroad, especially in light of the definitions and instructions contained therein (Metzger v. Brockman, supra).
In sum, a review of the document demand and interrogatories reveals that while some of the information requested is necessary to defend the action, a substantial portion is overbroad, burdensome, or calls for irrelevant material or conclusions. Under these circumstances, the remedy is not judicial pruning but vacatur of the entire demand and interrogatories (Dopf v. United Airlines, 135 A.D.2d 453; Metzger v. Brockman, supra; Vancek v International Dynetics Corp., supra).
Concur — Ross, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.