Key Takeaway
Court rules plaintiff must comply with discovery demands after failing to timely object, absent showing information sought is palpably improper or privileged.
In New York civil litigation, the discovery process operates under strict procedural rules that parties must follow to protect their interests. When a party receives discovery demands, they have limited time to object under CPLR 3122(a) and CPLR 3133(a). Failure to meet these deadlines can have significant consequences, as demonstrated in a recent case involving corporate disclosure obligations.
The Maiga Productions decision highlights a common procedural pitfall: what happens when a plaintiff fails to timely challenge discovery requests. This case serves as an important reminder that procedural compliance in discovery can be just as crucial as the substantive merits of any objection.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Maiga Prods. Corp. v United Servs. Auto. Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 51148(U)
Interestingly, there was no discussion in this case relative to an offer of proof regarding whether what I presume is whether corporate disclosure was established. The following is noted: “Furthermore, plaintiff failed to object to the discovery demands at issue within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122 (a) and CPLR 3133 (a). Thus, plaintiff is obligated to produce the information sought by defendant except as to matters which are palpably improper or privileged (see Fausto v City of New York, 17 AD3d 520 ; Marino v County of Nassau, 16 AD3d 628 ; AVA Acupuncture, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 134, 2010 NY Slip Op 51350 ). Plaintiff has failed to establish that the discovery demands served by defendant seek information which is palpably improper or privileged.”
Key Takeaway
The court’s ruling emphasizes that missing discovery objection deadlines significantly weakens a party’s position. Once these time limits pass, the burden shifts to the objecting party to demonstrate that the requested information is either palpably improper or privileged—a notably high standard. This underscores the importance of timely procedural compliance in litigation strategy.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2017, the CPLR discovery provisions cited (CPLR 3122 and 3133) may have been subject to amendments affecting objection deadlines, waiver standards, or corporate disclosure requirements. Additionally, intervening case law may have refined the application of the “palpably improper” standard discussed in the Maiga Productions decision. Practitioners should verify current provisions and recent judicial interpretations before relying on the procedural guidance outlined in this analysis.
