GS Plasticos Limitada v Bureau Veritas Consumer Prods. Servs., Inc.

GS Plasticos Limitada v Bureau Veritas Consumer Prods. Servs., Inc. 2013 NY Slip Op 08542 Decided on December 24, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 24, 2013
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman, Clark, JJ.
11405N 650242/09

[*1]GS Plasticos Limitada, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.




Abduljaami, PLLC, New York (Saboor H. Abduljaami of
counsel), for appellant.
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York (Jonathan E.
Polonsky of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered August 13, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motions to compel disclosure in response to document request numbers 1, 15, 20, 26, and 28 of plaintiff's Third Notice of Discovery and Inspection, document request number 16 of its First Notice of Discovery and Inspection, and numbers 1 through 17 of its Fifth Set of Interrogatories, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this case alleging tortious interference with existing contractual relations, plaintiff, a Brazilian manufacturer of toy premiums for the promotional market, alleges that between August and October of 2006, defendant, a provider of testing and inspection services for consumer products, intentionally issued false reports to plaintiff's client indicating that plaintiff's stamps were unsafe, causing the client to terminate the contract.On this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court, which has managed a long and contentious discovery process and is intimately familiar with this litigation, providently exercised its discretion in denying nearly all of the discovery demands at issue here, largely upon its findings, supported in the record, that defendant [*2]had already sufficiently responded to most of them, and that they otherwise sought irrelevant information for which plaintiff had laid an insufficient factual predicate (see Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740 [2000]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 24, 2013

DEPUTY CLERK