Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 98 published articles analyzing discovery issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
In no-fault insurance litigation, discovery disputes frequently arise when parties seek to depose individuals who may have limited knowledge of the underlying claims. The question becomes whether the proposed discovery will actually produce relevant information or simply add unnecessary costs and delays to the proceedings.
This case illustrates a common scenario in no-fault practice where insurance companies challenge medical providers’ billing practices. When medical professionals pass away, their estates often become defendants in these declaratory judgment actions. However, the administrators of these estates may have little to no knowledge about the day-to-day operations of the medical practice or the specific treatments that generated the disputed bills.
The discovery standards in New York require parties to demonstrate that their proposed discovery methods will reasonably lead to relevant evidence. This protective approach prevents fishing expeditions that could burden parties without advancing the litigation. Understanding these disclosure requirements is crucial for practitioners handling no-fault insurance disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v RLC Med., P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 03979 (2d Dept. 2017)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
(1) “The plaintiff insurance company commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Estate of Ronald L.L. Collins, seeking a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff has no obligation to pay no-fault claims for medical services purportedly rendered by Collins.”
(2) “It is incumbent on the party seeking disclosure to demonstrate that the method of discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims’” (D’Alessandro v Nassau Health Care Corp., 137 AD3d at 1196, quoting Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d 420, 421). Here, the plaintiff made no showing that conducting the deposition of the administrator will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims”
I am unsure what the administrator had to offer. Since it is not an e-filed case and I am not going to Mineola to pull the file, I will never know.
Key Takeaway
Courts will deny discovery requests when the seeking party fails to demonstrate that the proposed method will yield relevant evidence. In estate cases involving medical practice disputes, administrators may have limited knowledge of clinical operations, making depositions potentially unproductive and unnecessarily burdensome to the litigation process.
Related Articles
- NY EBT Venue Rules: When Courts Grant Undue Hardship Exceptions for Depositions
- Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
- Discovery Violations and Court Sanctions: When New York Courts Strike Back
- Understanding Discovery Rules and Summary Judgment Timing in NY Personal Injury Cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
98 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026
Another Discovery
Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.
May 22, 2021
Why a Substitute IME Doctor Is Not Allowed After Note of Issue in New York
NY courts restrict substitute IME doctors after note of issue filing.
Dec 21, 2015
Conditional discovery order vacated upon showing of law office failure
New York courts may vacate discovery sanctions when defendants show reasonable law office failure excuse and meritorious defenses, as demonstrated in Elite Medical case.
Oct 27, 2013
Brutal discovery decision from the Appellate Term First Department
Appellate Term First Department issues harsh discovery sanctions ruling, striking defendant's answer for failure to respond to disclosure requests in no-fault case.
Nov 7, 2010
Conditional Order of preclusion substitutes for willfulness
New York court ruling clarifies that willfulness is not required for preclusion sanctions when parties violate conditional orders of preclusion in discovery disputes.
Jul 20, 2020Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a discovery matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
