JUSTICE PART 6 SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - NEW YOI K STATE - NASSAU COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ANTHONY L. PARGA

Transcription

1 SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - NEW YOI K STATE - NASSAU COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ANTHONY L. PARGA JUSTICE GEORGE MELKONIAN -against - Plaintiff: AIRCRAliT SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC. ALSTATE MAINTENANCE LLC, AMERICAN AIRLINES, INe. d/b/a AMERICAN AIRLINES TERMINAL ONE GROUP ASSOCIATION, L. and TERMINAL ONE MANAGMENT, INC. PART 6 INDE)( NO- 3487/10 MOTION DATE: 06/21/12 QLJENCE NO. 004 Defendants. AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC. -against- Third-Party Plaintiff: AIR FRANCE Third-Party Dclcndant X Notice of Cross-Motion, Affs & E;xs... A ftirma ti 0 n in Pa rtial Op pos iti on"""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''... Upon the foregoing papers, the motion by third- party plaintitl Aircraft Service International, Inc., compelling Air France to respond to defendant's Notice to Produce compelling defendant Alstate Maintenance LI, C to produce employee, Rabbinoff Sahadeo, for a deposition, and adjourning the summary judgment motion, is denied, in part, to the extent directed below. Defendant/third-party plaintiff Aircraft Service International, Inc. (hereinafter " AS I" moves to compel additional discovery alter two discovery conference calls were held in this

2 matter and aller the Court specifically directed in its./une order that no further discovery motions could be brought in this Part without prior Court approval, which it did not seek. Defendant/third-party plaintitl ASl contends that Air France s May response to its Notice to Produce, dated April 6, 2012, was insuflcien1. The Court has reviewed ASI' s demand and Air France s response and found that Air France s responses to questions 1, and 8 are sufficient. ASI' s demands numbered 1, and 3 ali pertain to safety, training and operation manuals provided for Air France employees at./fk International Airport, and Air France response that it is not in possession of any such manuals as it does not own or operate any jet bridges at JFK International Airport is sul1icient. ASI quotes from the deposition testimony of Air France s witness, Carminc DiLeo, to demonstratc that "Air France is withholding documents " however, nowhere within the testimony quoted in ASI' s motion does Ms. DiLeo testify that Air France "publishes" safety documents that warn employees not to stand beneath a jet bridge. She testified only that she was given " instructions " as part of her training with respect to operations. ASI's demand #4 for al1 training, safety and opcrations manuals and documents tcn- Air France employees at airports other than./ FK Intcrnational Airport is irrelevant, improper and overbroad. ASI's demand #8 tor documents provided by Air France to plaintin~ such as memos or s received in addition to his " ramp training, " as tcstified to during his deposition, was also appropriately responded to by Air France. Air Francc responded that the mcmos are not kept hcyond two years, so they are not in possession of same. Further, ASI has failed to demonstrate the relevance of any of the discovery requests at issue hcrein. Demands that are unduly burdensome or lack specificity or seek privilcged matter or irrelevant information, or are otherwise improper, must be denied. (Lopez v. Huntington Autohaus Ltd. 150 A. 2d 351, 540 N. S.2d 874 (2d Dept. 1989); Gonzalez v. International Business Machines C'orp. 236 A. D.2d 363, 654 N. Y. 2d 327 (2d Dept. 1997)). The "principal of ' fuii disclosure' does not give a party the right to uncontroiied and unfettered disclosure, and the trial courts have ' broad power to regulate discovery to prevent abuse. (Gilman Ciocia Inc. v. Walsh 45 A. 3d 531, 845 N. Y.S.124 (2d Dept. 2007), quoting; Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v. International Bus. Machs. COfp. 76 AD. 2d 873); see also, Downing v. Moskovits AD. 3d N. 2d 320 (2d Dept. 20(9)(holding that " the supervision of discovery, and

3 )). the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, arc within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court" With respect to ASl's demands numbered and 7, to which Air France responded that documentation "will be provided under separate cover once received " which includes plaintiff's personnel file, DID3 training documents testified to by plaintif: and ramp coordinator training documents, it is hereby Ordered that Air France shall serve said documents in response to ASPs dcmands numbered 5, 6 and 7, or provide an affidavit from m Air France employce stating that same do not exist, by August 17, 2012, or Air France shall be precluded from offering evidence at the time of trial. The Court notes that Air France did not enter opposition to the instant cross-motion and that this Court previously directed Air France to provide the discovery at issue by May I 2 during the telepbone conference call with counsel for all parties on May Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect tor the dictates of the CPLR and a culture where cases can linger for years without resolution. (Gibbs St. Barnabus lio, 16 N. 3d 74, 942 N. 2d 277 (2010)). "If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity. (ld., quoting Kihl 94 N. 2d 118). ASl further moves to compel the deposition of Rabbinoff Sahadeo, an Alstate Maintenance I LC (hereinafter "AI state ) employee, who is the aisle chair mechanic. ASI contends that Mr. Sahadeo has knowledge ofthe condition ofthc subject chair herein. Dcfendant Alstate opposes ASl's request for Mr. Sahadeo, as Alstate prcviously produced the terminal manager /i)! Terminal Onc at JFK lntcrnational Airport, Louise Consiglio, f()r a deposition. Alstate argues that Ms. Consiglio had sufficicnt knowlcdge of the material facts herein. ASl fails to demonstrate that Ms. Consiglio had insufficient knowledge oftbe bcts herein or that her deposition was inadequate. " he Court notes that ASI makes no arguments whatsoever that Ms. C:onsigJio s deposition was insullicient, nor does ASI demonstrate that Mr. Sahadeo deposition possesses information material and necessary to this action or its defense. Ms. Consiglio testified that she was the person who would noti1y Mr. Sahadeo if any repairs were needed to the aisle chairs and that she did not recall ever having to order new brake parts for any of the aisle chairs, nor did anyone ever report to her that any aisle chair had inoperable brakes.

4 She also testilied that Alstate did not conduct any type of periodic inspection of the aisle chairs. Ms. Consiglio further testified that it was standard operating procedure for Alstate to leave aisle chairs on ajetbridge and that TOGA never advised Alstate not to leave aisle chairs unattended on a jetbridge. A business entity has the right in the first instance to determine which of its representatives wil1 appear for an examination bejore trial. (See, Barone v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co I, Ins. 260 A.D.2d N. Y. 2d (2d Dept. 1999); Tower v. Chemical Bank 140 A. 2d 514, 528 N. Y. 2d 413 (2d Dept. 1988); Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. New York Property Ins. Underwriting Assoc. 90 AD.2d 787, 455 N. Y. 2d 392 (2d Dept. 1982)). In order for a party to successful1y move to compel the production of additional witnesses from a business entity which already produced a representative, the party must show that the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or was otherwise inadequate, and that there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for deposition possesses information that is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case. (Barone v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Col, ins. 260 A. 2d N. Y.S. 2d (2d Dept. 1999); axe v. City of New York 250 AD.2d N. 2d (2d Depl. 1998); Tower v. Chemical Bank 140 AD.2d d 413 (2d Dept. 1988); Besen v. c.p.l. Yacht 5' ales, inc. 34 AD.2d 789, 312 N. Y.S. 144 (2d Dept. 1970)). ASI has failed to make the necessary showings to obtain Mr. Sadaheo deposition. 'rhere is also no indication in the evidence before this Court that there was a faulty or improperly repaired brake system on the aisle chair at issue. The Court also notes that at the Certification Conference held on June 21, 2012, ali parties represented that Mr. Sadaheo was not physical1y present when the accident at issue occurred. Lastly, as discussed with counsel for all parties at the June Certification Conference, the summary judgment motion in this matter was marked " final" for June 21, 2012 and will not be adjourned. Further, the Court again notes that it does not accept motions to adjourn motions. Any request for relief not expressly addressed herein is denied. This constitutes the decision and Order ofthis Court. As this matter was certified on June

5 ,, 2012, no further discovery demands may be served and no further discovery motions or cross-motions may be made in this part. "I Dated: June r-".' Cc: Murray, Morin & Herman, PA 500 Mamaroneck A venue, Suite 320 Harrison, NY Buttafuoco & Associates, PLLC 144 Woodbury Road Woodbury, NY ENTERED JUN NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Brown, Gavalas & Fromm, LLP 355 Lexington Avenue New York, NY Martyn, Toher & Martyn 330 Old Country Road, Suite 211 Mineola, NY 11501