In P. v. City of New York, the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a discovery dispute arising from a personal injury action. The plaintiff, JP, alleged he was injured in a trip-and-fall incident on a scaffold located within a fenced-off, locked construction zone. The defendants—New York City School Construction Authority and Admiral Construction LLC—sought to depose two former Department of Education principals, believing their testimony might shed light on the conditions surrounding the incident.
However, the City of New York and the Department of Education, named as third-party defendants, moved to quash the subpoenas. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the City’s cross-motion, and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed that decision.
The appellate court found that the subpoenas were properly served on the nonparty witnesses and that the City’s motion to quash was timely, given its prior good-faith efforts to resolve the issue without court intervention. More importantly, the court held that compelling the depositions would be futile. The former principals lacked personal knowledge of the scaffold or the incident, and the defendants failed to demonstrate that their testimony would be material and necessary to resolving the premises liability claims.
This decision underscores that discovery must be both relevant and proportional. Courts will not permit fishing expeditions, especially when the proposed witnesses have no direct connection to the facts in dispute.
Think the principals found this principled?
# # #
DECISION