This appeal addressed the time limit on discovery concerning standards of medical practice and the requirements the opposing party must meet to preclude such discovery. In the Supreme Court for Onondaga County, Angela Rawlins brought suit on behalf of the infant plaintiff, Christopher Rawlins. As the plaintiff’s guardian, Angela Rawlins sought damages from the defendant, St. Joseph’s Hospital, for injuries the plaintiff allegedly sustained during his birth on August 27, 2002. The supreme court denied in part the plaintiff’s motion to compel certain discovery responses from the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, challenging the supreme court’s ruling with respect to thirty-seven of his fifty-six discovery requests. On appeal, the appellate division held that the supreme court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion with respect to eight of the discovery items, remitting to the supreme court four of the items for further fact-finding. The appellate division further held that the remaining twenty-nine items were properly denied by the supreme court and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying these items by defining the period of time at issue as the period from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2002, because that time period included the date of the plaintiff’s birth.
In the supreme court, the plaintiff sought to compel discovery of national standards of fetal monitoring, birth protocols, materials concerning cesarean sections, medical associations’ guidelines, and the defendant’s unredacted policies and procedures. The appellate division addressed individually eight of the plaintiff’s discovery requests. In modifying the supreme court’s denial of these discovery requests, the appellate division first noted that CPLR 3101 requires “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3101(a) (McKinney 2009). The appellate division also recognized that “[e]ntitlement to discovery of matter satisfying the threshold requirement is, however, tempered by the trial court’s authority to impose, in its discretion, appropriate restrictions on demands which are unduly burdensome.” Kooper v. Kooper, 74 A.D.3d 6, 10 (2d Dep’t 2010).
Based on this recognition, the appellate division rejected the defendant’s argument that, because certain discovery items were available to the public, it was unduly burdensome for the defendant to produce. The appellate division also rejected the defendant’s contention that its lack of knowledge as to the existence of certain discovery items precluded their disclosure. The appellate division ultimately found that eight of the thirty-seven challenged discovery items were “material and necessary” to the plaintiff’s action. N.Y. CPLR 3101(a). However, the appellate division remitted four of the discovery matters to the supreme court for further fact-finding to determine whether the defendant, in fact, possessed certain items and what, if any, portion of the defendant’s unredacted policies and procedures were privileged.
108 A.D.3d 1191, 969 N.Y.S.2d 687 (4th Dep’t 2013)