Opinion
1187N
May 20, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 11, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants' motion to compel the production of documents responsive to document requests numbered 21 through 25 in defendant Sorrento, Inc.'s first notice for discovery and inspection, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Glenn M. Kurtz, for plaintiff-appellant.
John F. Cambria, for defendant-respondent.
Arthur M. Handler, for plaintiff-appellant.
David W. Rivkin, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach, Gonzalez, JJ.
The motion court properly exercised its discretion in requiring the production of documents responsive to the above-specified demands. Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to establish that the audit report sought by defendants was prepared primarily, if not solely, in anticipation of litigation (see Zampatori v. United Parcel Serv., 94 A.D.2d 974; Chemical Bank v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co., 70 A.D.2d 837). It also failed to meet its burden to identify any other responsive, putatively privileged documents (see McCarthy v. Klein, 238 A.D.2d 552).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.