Moreover, litigants do not have carte blanche to demand production of documents they speculate might contain useful information (see Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr., 83 AD3d 1283, 922 NYS2d 470 [2d Dept 2011]; Buxbaum v Castro, 82 AD3d 925, 925, 919 NYS2d 175 [2d Dept 2011]). A disclosure request will be considered palpably improper where it is determined that such information is privileged, irrelevant to the issues in the case, vague or overly broad, and, therefore, exempt from disclosure (see Farkas v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 97 AD3d 720, 948 NYS2d 651 [2d Dept 2012]; Velez v South Nine Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 1017, 822 NYS2d 86 [2d Dept 2006]).
The trial court has broad discretion to supervise discovery to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice (see CPLR 3 103(a); Andon v 302-304 Mott St Assocs., 94 NY2d 740, 709 NYS2d 873 [2000]; Congel v Malfitano, 84 AD3d 1145, 924 NYS2d 129 [2d Dept 2011]). However, "the principle of "full disclosure" does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure" (Buxbaum v Castro, 82 AD3d 925, 925, 919 NYS2d 175, [2d Dept 2011], quoting Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531, 845 NYS2d 124 [2d Dept 2007]).
Moreover, "[i]t is well settled that a party must provide duly executed and acknowledged written authorizations for the release of pertinent medical records under the discovery provisions of the CPLR when that party has waived the physician-patient privilege by affirmatively putting his or her physical or mental condition in issue" (Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med Or., 60 NY2d 452, 456-57, 470 NYS2d 122 [1983]; see CPLR 3121(a); Romance v Zavalle, 98 AD3d 726, 950 NYS2d 390 [2d Dept 2012]; Farkas v Orange Regional Med. Or., 97 AD3d 720, 948 NYS2d 651 [2d Dept 2012]). However, "the principle of 'full disclosure' does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure" (Buxbaum v Castro, 82 AD3d 925, 925, 919 NYS2d 175 [2d Dept 2011], quoting Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v Walsh, 45 AD3d 531, 531, 845 NYS2d 124 [2d Dept 2007]).
The court would note that the CPLR provides that the party seeking discovery should incur the costs incurred in the production of discovery material (Matter of Maura, 17 Misc 3d 237 [Sur Ct, Nassau County 2007]). In the absence of proof that a party intentionally destroyed or withheld evidence, the court should not direct the cloning of that party's hard drives (Melcher v Apollo Med. Fund Mgt. L.L.C., 52 AD3d 244 [1st Dept 2008]; see also, Buxbaum v Castro, 82 AD3d 925 [2d Dept 2011]). Until the petitioner is able to review the cloned computer records and the CD ROMS, and demonstrate that the information provided by the respondents is incomplete, it would be precipitous of this court to order that the computers be cloned again.