Key Takeaway
New York court ruling clarifies that willfulness is not required for preclusion sanctions when parties violate conditional orders of preclusion in discovery disputes.
Understanding Conditional Orders of Preclusion in New York Discovery
In New York civil litigation, discovery disputes can lead to serious consequences when parties fail to comply with court orders. One of the most powerful tools courts have at their disposal is the conditional order of preclusion, which threatens to exclude evidence or dismiss claims if a party continues to violate discovery obligations.
A common misconception among litigants is that courts must find “willful” non-compliance before imposing preclusion sanctions. This misunderstanding can lead to costly strategic errors during the discovery phase. The recent First Department decision in Center Sheet Metal v Cannon Design, Inc. provides important clarity on this issue, demonstrating that once a conditional order of preclusion is in place, the standard for sanctions becomes much more straightforward.
Understanding these rules is crucial for attorneys handling complex litigation where discovery motions can significantly impact case outcomes. The stakes are particularly high when parties are already operating under conditional orders that could result in case-ending sanctions.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Center Sheet Metal v Cannon Design, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04010 (1st Dept. 2020)
“Plaintiffs violated the court’s third conditional order of preclusion by failing to produce a witness for Aspen’s scheduled deposition, and failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply or a meritorious claim.”
Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the court was not required to find that their failure to comply was willful (Keller v Merchant Capital Portfolios, LLC, 103 AD3d 532, 533 ).
Key Takeaway
Once a court issues a conditional order of preclusion, parties face a strict compliance standard. Unlike initial discovery sanctions that may require proof of willful non-compliance, violation of a conditional order of preclusion can result in sanctions regardless of intent. The burden shifts to the non-complying party to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the violation and that their underlying claim has merit.
