Opinion
June 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying, in toto, Celotex's motion for a protective order. Plaintiff failed to establish that Celotex's 2-ply or 4-ply specifications are sufficiently similar to the 730-c 3-ply specification which plaintiff alleges was defective (see, Wilcox v. County of Onondaga, 132 A.D.2d 984, 985; Harmon v Ford Motor Co., 89 A.D.2d 800, 801; Johantgen v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 64 A.D.2d 858, 859). Accordingly, discovery should be limited to documents concerning the nature and development of Celotex's 3-ply specification from 1964 when it was first marketed until 1982 when plaintiff discovered the defects in the roof. Discovery of similar litigation claims may be extended to the present, but only about information regarding caption and index number (see, Valet v. American Motors, 105 A.D.2d 645, 647; Mott v Chesebro-Whitman Co., 87 A.D.2d 573, 574).