Opinion
January 13, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.).
As a result of prior proceedings, plaintiff already is effectively prohibited from disclosing information of a confidential or a proprietary nature ( 191 A.D.2d 368). Defendant now seeks an order protecting any category of information revealed during disclosure that it designates as confidential, no effort being made to specify the information in need of protection and why it will be necessary to disclose such to plaintiff in the course of disclosure, and indeed, as yet, plaintiff has not even served any discovery demands. The proper course is for defendant to seek a protective order prior to a scheduled deposition or in response to a discovery demand (see, CPLR 3122). In short, it was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS Court to deny the relief requested as premature, albeit leave to renew should have been granted, and we hereby modify specifically to provide for leave to renew in accordance with the above.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.