Scher v Paramount Pictures Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Scher v Paramount Pictures Corp. 2012 NY Slip Op 33784(U) February 27, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 116541/06 Judge: Paul Wooten Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] ' ... HON •.PAUL W0.0TEN Defentl~ints-~ '·,. · The'fQl!owintfpap~t$~ :nuJTibere·d 1 ·t~A~Were. read on .thl$ ·:m~tionJ>V def~ndan~ to rQargJ1e:1p,(1i'$Yant to . . CPLF(~221. - . . . . . ·PAF!ER$' NUMBERED fiq\i~,91 l>!!!tl!!!li ~rdftt!! $hRW .c•~~~-j ~~~!IJ'.~J#'b.f.L)f ·...,..'·. ____,:_,. , -~. .·~.: ., .\. ,. -._-.-_.,. .:_.·,. . . . 1Afl,sW@rln9Affiday.1~- E;xhtb.its (M@mQ) .. _ . _.- • ~ .- . -- . . - . ~"·.:-:-:-a\_ ·:_· =='--~, .R~~ly.1he·Affi~~jdiJ~lRil?fY~M,rro<>l.:....··-.....-;..,:;---=._·.....,..._........,.,......-.,....'-..... ....~~rrfti'i::r'n'r-<l'ttiitft:'!~--~-.. -':""........·'~•;~--......--....·-~-~--' · --.-.---:·- _ -... Cross-'Motion~ ... .. 0 Yes.-lil No. - . _. · ._ . -N~YOR~ ·:. · _ · Thi.s is.a :!llc:>tion· ~Y def~nd,E!nts ·paramount 'Pi~~~~~~fiW,~'~B.6~R~~9i :(dgf@'.Q'.fJ)]I($): " · • t ' • - ,_);, ' Co.udls '.cfe,pisiori ·-~n~t order dat~d: Se,ptf;jITT.ber 3()1·~0-~:1 :anq;:enteted -oh~Octciber;~~:._ :2.0W~J(rtior · D~cisioaj and v~catit)g pla'intiff's-Note:-of ls.sue':and .Q,ettmciate of'R~a~iness fOttri~LfileC!tr~>:n· - • ·--_ > • • '. ~ • . . ._... - .... - - .. _ _ _ ..,_ •..-• • • • • ~ ,. 4_,..:.._~-- ....... ·.-: ·-..•.. :.:· ...:~: _____ ·_ ' Nov:~mber, 1.-20~,1. In its ··Prior Ded.$l0.n, this·:C:t:>l;!f:tgi:~l:)i~~:lh~ -0\C)tiqh:~y·pl~hit.iffM~t!~~~. ' • -. . . - " '. ::. .._,, .. •, .- .. . 'i~ Sche·r (plaintiff) :Jo .strike tb.e defencf~i:il$' answ~.rfor defendants·' 'failure to, cc>'rnply wit_b. ·glsqov,ery . •' ::: . • . ,, .· . · . : '.- .• 1' -- - ..... requests: and pfevidu$ orders of.'this·,;~_olfrt:.and' 1deniedid~f.~ndar:itis'--cross..mO.tiO:MifP- :epm~el . . ·. :» ., '.' -.. . . ' ' . . .. discovery. Upon reargumenf, defendants seek that this'CQurtto reverse its·Prior Decision, deny plaintiff's motion ·to· ;strike, ar;d gra.nt defendants~ m·otio_n to compel discoveryJre>n1the. plaintiff. Defendants also seek an order vacating plaintiff's Note of Issue and C~rtifiqate of Readiness and striking this matter from the trial calendar~ Plaintiff is in opposition to · defendants' motion. In support of their motion to reargue defendants set forth mostly theisame arguments I offered in opposition to the plaintiff's' motion to strike, but they submit an incomplete record Of Page 1 of 4 I I [ [* 2] ·. - . - -' ' . . .. ' -' . ' . - . - ~ :~ . :~ ~ ' .' .· ~ .:-_·· alt:the,papers'·in the.original motion·lOefen(lant's-affil'fuation i.h$,tjppott~ 1V21?~4_;); D.~fen~_~nts · ·p~offer, 111t~r a/fa, th~t the Court rni$~ppr~hen~ed &o~h the law and-~he facts.rteiev~nt-.to.tlie·F!rio·r ; · -_ · Deci~iqh., .Specificany1 d~f~ndarits:.rnaintaih -thai·th~-'Qbt.ii1 faHe.d.Jo~ conside·rc~ffjqavif~~:Pf . · Pa~amount_-employees:; d~ted.Augl.ist '1"7 .a~d .19., "20.~0 •. in whj¢hJliey claime.d th.a.~. the_,y majit:fa :§e.arph.fq_r~yar.i.ous r~cO:rg~ at~rt\:fri~Q~g(fl~d .UmEt· , . . . tn 0P1iosition. pi~lntifftnafntaia~:'.thalHiis:·c.o.utf.$h9~ldi'tQt:gftnt·d~f~'!ilc;f~nt$f019fip~::t9 reargue because the $ourt in re~ohi~g ,lt~ PriotD~.~isJQ.11 did,-119tm!s~pprehepd or.:'a~etlook, , · . -m~ttersdof)~W or·t~ct ;~pe«~'ifica1tyJ:,:PlalqWt·~ass~ri~:lhattl~fep~lfr11t$~, r¢Uan:c.~o.n :th~tv/o -- ·affidavits"~$-lhe basis;,fqr:this rnotio11.i$::!'t_ro,ubll119·~,~ari~,·~P.~set~~$~' Q'epaµse{d~f:>9$itib_n'. 1~~Jlrftony wtiich·l9~~~place~stib$~1ii!et1t·t().Jhe¥l:!fil!il~siqn:J>fi!~e;:fy/o>~tfld~yi~s"tlear1y·'evidende-cf•tl!latifh~:., . :, ..-. . . ; . . . - . ' - affidavits, which were .submitt.ed after:(J.efendan~~· failure lo Potnpty With fourc;<>n!?·ee!!Jti~~g~f{.er:s 1 0 . .·'._','-', I. I I :9.fitbis, Cg,µrl:i~ir.e.ctir19::.~~fe.n~.~Rf$:~~~t~·r~$P9hCI tg.',:9.~~~t~li~ipS:',cJ!~~~v~n7.·:·w~$-.,~,:eso.~p~e·'th~ c (- .• · consequence of their-wilff~I and· contl.Jmacious colldU'Ci,and'thafthe Cpurt". oaving been apprised of: the, falsity 9.flhe. :affidavit~ properly :$tl}l~l(the ,def~n:g~nts' ahswe.i:s.. • I .. ' - '~ : . • STANDARD·.. . . . ··. . .' ' . ··'···· CPLR 22Z1(d) :Provides, in r~ievant :PE.ITt•. thaba\:rt'fotiorrto- reargue m.usf be identified; as. .. . . - . . . . . - .... · ,. . . such and ~shall. be .bas~ci,~pon matters onact· orl.~W" aH~gedlY· 9v~tt<loke~ :p.f:rnisa1i!·~re~:~hd~ by the couifin determining the prior rrjqtion, but s}iall ne>t inch.itle _any matter$.offact not-dffered on .the prior motion." A motion for reargument "addressed to th~tdiscretion c;>f ,the couft, is designed lo afford aparty ari opportunity to esfabli$1i:that 'the CO!.frfoverfook~d or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controllin_g principle ~f law" (Foley v Roche, 68 Ab2d 558, .567 [1st Dept 1979); seeCPLR 2221[d) [2]). Arearg~ment motion is based solely on the papers submitted in connection with the prior motion. It: is not a means by which an unsuccessful party can obtain a second opportunity to argue one or more issues Page 2 of 4 I l [*,. 3] h- .... ._ I I- i :· .... prev[O.U$1y qecic:fed, nor.is· if~li-_ c;>pP.Ort~nilY·to: $µ~tnif:heW:or-~af;fglj{ot1.~l:fa9t~ ~qti:pf.~'li~IJ$fY _submitted as.pact-:of,;lhe motiori ($ee·MoGill:v,:Goldman,261. AGl2¢f593: ! 594.(gcft;)e#t1·_1~'9~j~ -1'$. E. (53 St. Co. v Cook, 120-AD2d 442, 443 [1.$f0ept1.986]; ·Foleyv:/~oche, 6SiAD~<t§J5e,;$6't'~5~e r1_stD~pJ 1979])'. :DIS.OUSSiflN i I !. i I I Upon the foregoinQ -p~pers; defeni:tants1·h_$V~ ·demonsfr~tedhthat the ·Qourt.;tn''.ft$;;Pdor . De-cisi9n~ overlooked ·or fni$._appre~ended matter$: Qf:f~cHo it$. d~f~_dninati~m 9Utl~,\PJ~itit!ff's-. ' _prior moti9n to:.strik~ ~ursuaht to ·CPl:;R: $12.6. (se-e CPL;R.'42Qt[d][~]). Ttius, tb~·G.c:i9r;t9Jants· " 1.-1 I " - 0 • • <' • < : " "', •"' • " - "-.__ • T d_~feh(:f $nt$1 'ftlPttoH ·,tq reatg\Je.:this Court~$,:Rcior :Pec_i$iono1'.l':ptaitftiffl$ motioo't'to(str~i1 ' ·: --· ~p:en-rearg\.l_rlteht; and ,after-ca tevrevn~f';Jh~ :re:c-afd1c 0lh~1,~0.Qtirtii~-~~-~t~$~:to ·it5.fcti:~ln~l 1 !~ r- - ' I dete.tminatlon. the defendahts h~ve..fallecf to c_ornply:,with .otd~rs;.'.of this ~Court ·.dilte:d~J~aua.~ I: 16.,-.2009, October· 1, 2009, ~uly 19, 201:0, Fe.br:uary 11., '3Ptt:C).i .an.d·~&1~y ·12,.'-20.lt ;\N,liJ~h;~cJireJil~~t 1:· 1: . ' ' .. ' . .' .' ' ~~~- I· -1ti~-·tfjfer)'(l.~Jjt$·. to ~itli~t provide -ttie 'Plainiiff .With. re·qu~~~.e~Lao9\\(srl ~ntauo·q.~a!Mffgt\~!JR.nflt:.t:i. · !. 1: ·satiifaetory ·affi°tfavit. st.atlng 'that no such -do~ument~~i~n exi$t~t i: I I: ! :p~fe.;id~nt~ ,wer~ ;p4t·:ori nc>t!ce af.ac'9mpliance~oo,r1ference··lleJd on July 1$, 201'0 ~ba.f ·s.ho\.ilelr:tbe~,f~it:to ·eqrnply-,;;lhe ,pfaii:ltift 1 . . _ Wpylg:'m(?VEfto :$tri~e; the r~lief ·$.h~ sougbt::at1iil'Wa$ ~r@nt¢d.1. Tf{e-rJ~f.epd~nt$·haV~ch.t>t · •, ·- . . .. . - ,, . . - . ' . ·, ' . .. --- .• "·' . ·-- .. --··I ._ •.,., subr:n1tfedrsufficient documentatic>ri or sn affida~iltwM.lohA~tQYidesra:·$~fisfa·ct~ty.~e~plam~tion·-.:as .. :tcrth~(d~i!3Y inpro\tidii1g.such :m~ter:i.al~. 'The ($ffldavtt~·:$tibmlt.tetl:"qy the .def~pd~ot~: ir.i :.,_ · _ . - pppo_siti,on t6 plaihtiff's:'motion whii;:h state .'that· a :search. for·:r~·qµ~~te~ d(>cunten.t~.w~~ · . . conducted-are contradicted by deposjtion-testlmony·rgivE!n·~y"both'.affi~rtsa~d taken.aft~rthe- . submission ofthe affidavits. The affidavi~s are accordingly r~ndered false: arid ve>i~i ~Qd~do' not ·satisfy defendants' burden to provide discovery. Defendants' willful failure to. procjuce;the 1 The Court notes that in the notice of motion the defendants do not request reargument of their'cross- . motion to compel discovery from the plaintiff (Defendant's Notice of Motion W 1-3), but briefly'.refer to it in 1J 15 of the supporting affirmation. However, the defendants do not meet the standard.for reargumenta~ they have not demonstrated that the Court overlooked or misapprehended any matters of fact or law which would have chang~d the determination of defendants' motion to compel (see CPLR 2221 [d)(2)). Page 3 of 4 c - - - -- - [* 4] .. .' i~~J~s1~~tdlso.9v.e.~'i:qr~a·:satisf~~J9w:·~ft~_avit;,iticitcatih~;;~rse~t9h1W~~"Qon,~t~~!i~ffgt't~~ ,. ·. · • · • • •- - " :" .,- ' - : .. ' ' _ • '• • ~ • ' . ' , •j ' , . ·:,. • • 11 : ' . I , ' reqµestect. :~iS.~q,Y:Ei.i'Y·~'~Ji~ .th~f n9'~L!¢tlt~J~~&vg(r}(e~i~fs~~$;JrFq9dtrav.~.@tf9,r<:>dhis:':o~"C1tti.$~ ·· · .·: ;.. I. ' ,, I , previous, Prd~nh indutjing·-the,JLllf.1;3i ~~m~ie:.9otl~iUoM~H)tQ.~r~ i,~,~·:$g,q~;··ttl.$+:~~f~g~~~~7Will.:h~~i: . ' : H.' .. . - .' .:::1:~.:~==~::~::~:;~~::~~:t:;~~~:;::~:::1:;z; • ·,- •• '· ' . N<' • - . . . ' . :....·- ' • - •.. ::· ~- ... -•.- -.. :·x ' .•-'. . i\ L.'I I· . 1.·. I· I'• t· I'f: 1,; i~ i; PAUL'W0.0ifEN i: -J$~.C. ..· ... :... . . . .-. . . . .. ,• Check one: 0 Chec~if appropriate: : FINAL 01$P0SITION D DO NOT POST 1· Page4 of 4 " ,/ lL . ' ., •; . . . . ~ ' ' -_ ' ' -- ,_. - lif NON':'FINAL OIS~0$1TION D REFERENCE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.