N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3101

Section 3101(c)’s work product immunity is waived for material necessary to a fee claim when the attorneys have an interest in the award.

Measom v. Greenwich & Perry Street Housing Corp. · filed 2002-03-22(c)

Since plaintiffs’ attorneys have conceded an interest in the award of fees and expenses, the attorneys likewise have waived any immunity for work product that is material and necessary to the issues of fees and expenses.

Section 3101(c) protects draft agreements and counsel’s written impressions as attorney work product.

IMO Industries, Inc. v. Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. · filed 2002-07-31(c)

Work product is immune from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (c). ... The drafts of agreements and the memoranda prepared by IMO’s general counsel regarding his impressions are work product; the other material is not.

Section 3101(b) makes confidential attorney-client communications absolutely immune from discovery, including communications prepared in response to an attorney’s oral request.

New York Times Newspaper Division v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. · filed 2002-12-24(b)

The attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications between clients and their attorneys made “in the course of professional employment” (CPLR 4503 [a] [1]), and such privileged communications are absolutely immune from discovery (CPLR 3101 [b]; see also Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 377).

CPLR 3101(c) narrowly protects materials prepared by an attorney acting as an attorney that contain legal analysis and trial strategy.

Kinge v. State · filed 2003-02-06(c)

Next addressing the determination that the memorandum from Roth to the Chief Inspector for the State Police is privileged from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (c) as attorney work product (see Salzer v Farm Family Life Ins. Co., 280 AD2d 844, 845), we recognize that such privilege should be narrowly applied to “ ‘materials prepared by an attorney, acting as an attorney, which contain his [or her] analysis and trial strategy’ ” (id. at 846, quoting Graf v Aldrich, 94 AD2d 823, 824).

Section 3101(d) protects litigation materials prepared by an appraiser who is not called as a witness from disclosure as attorney work product, but incorporated prior appraisals may be disclosed for impeachment.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Moreau Assessor · filed 2004-06-24(d)

Finally, while it is true that materials prepared for litigation by an appraiser who is not called as a witness are protected from disclosure as attorney work product (see Xerox Corp. v Town of Webster, 206 AD2d 935, 935 [1994]; see also CPLR 3101 [d]), here, petitioners established that Lagassa’s appraisal relied upon and incorporated information contained in Thompson’s prior appraisals of the subject hydroelectric power facilities. As such, these prior appraisals are relevant for the purpose of impeaching Lagassa on cross-examination and, thus, are subject to disclosure (see CMRC Corp. v State of New York, 270 AD2d 27, 27 [2000]).

Section 3101(c) protects an attorney's work product from disclosure as privileged.

Morgan v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation · filed 2004-07-01(c)

The CPLR creates privileges for communications between attorneys and their clients (see CPLR 4503 [a]), as well as for attorney work product (see CPLR 3101 [c]). ... Thus, title reports, handwritten notes and diagrams prepared by the Attorney General’s office were all work product which was privileged, therefore exempt from disclosure (see CPLR 3101 [c]).

Section 3101(b) exempts privileged information from disclosure.

Lombardi v. Hall · filed 2004-03-29(b)

Even where this preliminary burden has been satisfied discovery may still be precluded where the information requested is privileged and thus exempted from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (b) (see Dillenbeck v Hess, supra; Navedo v Nichols, supra at 379).

CPLR 3101 protects privileged material from disclosure even when a party’s failure to object on time otherwise forecloses challenges to discovery requests.

Fausto v. City of New York · filed 2005-04-18

The defendants’ failure to challenge the plaintiff’s notice of discovery within the time prescribed foreclosed inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to requests that are privileged under CPLR 3101, or as to requests which are palpably improper (see Garcia v Jomber Realty, 264 AD2d 809, 810 [1999]; cf. Garner v Garner, 160 AD2d 833, 835 [1990]).

Section 3101(b) protects attorney-client correspondence related to rendering legal advice from compelled disclosure.

Surgical Design Corp. v. Correa · filed 2005-08-08(b)

All but the three letters were related to the rendering of “sound legal advice” (In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F2d 1032, 1036, 1038 [1984]), and, thus, the Referee should not have directed the plaintiff to produce them (see CPLR 3101 [b]).

Section 3101(b) protects privileged attorney-client communications from disclosure unless the privilege is waived.

Delta Financial Corp. v. Morrison · filed 2006-05-09(b)

The attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications between clients and their attorneys made “in the course of professional employment” (CPLR 4503 [a] [1]), and such privileged communications, absent waiver, are absolutely immune from discovery (CPLR 3101 [b]; New York Times Newspaper Div. of NY. Times Co. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 300 AD2d 169, 171 [1st Dept 2002]; see also Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]).

Section 3101 protects a child’s communications with an expert hired to assist a parent’s attorney in preparing a defense as attorney work product or materials prepared for litigation.

Matter of D.T. · filed 2005-09-27(c), (d)(2)

Communications by the child to an expert hired by the respondent-father to assist his attorney in preparing the defense of this proceeding would be protected from disclosure as part of the attorney's work product and/or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.

Section 3101(b) shields documents protected by the attorney-client privilege from compelled disclosure.

Pervez v. Beth Israel Medical Center · filed 2006-05-30(b)

denied with respect to the remaining documents, which are shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, or as attorney work product or material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [b]; see Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 73 NY2d 588 [19893; New York Times Newspaper Div. of N.Y. Times Co. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 300 AD2d 169 [2002]).

Section 3101(b) gives privileged matter absolute immunity from discovery; the court applied that protection to attorney-client communications of a primarily legal character.

Delta Financial Corp. v. Morrison · filed 2006-07-26(b)

As the Court of Appeals set forth in Spectrum, “CPLR 4503 (a) states that a privilege exists for confidential communications made between attorney and client in the course of professional employment, and CPLR 3101 (b) vests privileged matter with absolute immunity.” ... Document Nos. 1600 and 4585 are privileged as they consist of communications solely between attorney and client of a primarily or predominantly legal character.

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of relevant prior litigation documents, subject to privilege; a court may review the documents in camera when the motion papers do not resolve those questions.

Liquore v. Tri-Arc Manufacturing Co. · filed 2006-09-19(a)

While the plaintiff demonstrated that certain prior litigation documents may be relevant and, thus, subject to disclosure (see generally CPLR 3101 [a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403 [1968]), the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, to compel the production of those documents were insufficient to make a determination as to whether or not those documents were in fact relevant and not otherwise privileged. Thus, the Supreme Court should have examined the documents, in camera, prior to making its determination.

CPLR 3101(b) gives privileged matter absolute protection from disclosure, but a court may review disputed documents in camera to determine whether the privilege applies.

Optic Plus Enterprises, Ltd. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. · filed 2007-02-02(b)

We conclude that Supreme Court properly refused to compel defendants to produce the documents but erred in denying that part of plaintiffs motion for an in camera review of them. ... “CPLR 4503 (a) states that a privilege exists for confidential communications made between attorney and client in the course of professional employment, and CPLR 3101 (b) vests privileged matter with absolute immunity” (Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]).

Section 3101(c) protects attorney work product, but that protection can be waived by disclosure that materially increases the likelihood an adversary will obtain it.

Scott v. Beth Israel Medical Center Inc. · filed 2007-10-17(c)

The work product doctrine provides a qualified privilege against disclosure for materials prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation. (CPLR 3101 [c].) The issue is whether the work product privilege was waived. Under New York State law, work product is waived when it is disclosed in a manner that materially increases the likelihood that an adversary will obtain the information. ... When client confidences are at risk, PW’s pro forma notice at the end of the e-mail is insufficient and not a reasonable precaution to protect its clients.

An untimely challenge to a disclosure demand does not bar an objection that the requested material is privileged under CPLR 3101.

Hunt v. Odd Job Trading · filed 2007-10-09

Sunbeam’s failure to timely challenge the notice to produce “forecloses inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to material that is privileged pursuant to CPLR 3101, or requests that are palpably improper” (Garcia v Jomber Realty, 264 AD2d 809, 810 [1999], citing Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721 [1995]). ... Since the information and documents sought by the plaintiffs in their notice to produce were neither privileged nor palpably improper, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel Sunbeam to comply with the notice to produce and properly denied Sunbeam’s cross motion for a protective order.

Section 3101(c) protects attorneys’ analyses and evaluations involving strategy and legal theory from disclosure as work product.

Veras Investment Partners, LLC v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP · filed 2008-06-19(c)

Such materials would constitute attorneys’ work product, immune from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (c), because they involve strategy and legal theory (see Rodriguez v City of New York, 29 AD2d 962 [1968], appeal dismissed 26 NY2d 833 [1970]).

A claimed mediation confidentiality privilege under CPLR 3101(b) does not prevent disclosure when confidentiality has been waived.

Hauzinger v. Hauzinger · filed 2008-06-26(b)

The mediator's claim that a qualified privilege exists, pursuant to CPLR 3101 (b), in maintaining mediation confidentiality is without merit where the privilege has been waived.

Section 3101(b) protects communications covered by the deliberative process privilege from disclosure.

New York Telephone Co. v. Nassau County · filed 2008-08-12(b)

The communications at issue are protected from disclosure by the deliberative process privilege (see CPLR 3101 [b]; Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 277 [1996]; Tigue v United States Dept. of Justice, 312 F3d 70, 76 [2002]; Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc. v Cuomo, 166 F3d 473, 482-483 [1999]).

Section 3101 protects attorney-client communications, attorney work product, and materials prepared for litigation from disclosure.

McClier Corp. v. United States Rebar, Inc. · filed 2009-10-01(b), (c), (d)(2)

The motion court then conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents and ruled that most were protected by either the attorney-client privilege (CPLR 3101 [b]) or the immunities for attorney work product (CPLR 3101 [c]) and materials prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). No basis exists to disturb this ruling.

Once a party’s physical condition is in controversy, that party bears the burden of proving that hospital records are privileged and exempt from disclosure under CPLR 3101(b).

Lopez v. Agustin · filed 2010-01-12(b)

Thus, the burden shifted to the appellant to establish that the hospital records at issue were privileged and, thus, exempt from disclosure ... However, the appellant failed to meet his burden.

Section 3101 does not bar disclosure based solely on a conclusory assertion that the requested material is privileged.

Wilner v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2010-01-12

With regard to their cross motion, the plaintiffs are correct that, since the defendant’s objections to their discovery demands were not served within 20 days of service, as required by CPLR 3122 (a), this Court’s review “ ‘is limited to determining whether the requested material is privileged under CPLR 3101 or the demand is palpably improper’ ” (Coville v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 30 AD3d 744, 745 [2006], quoting McMahon v Aviette Agency, 301 AD2d 820, 821 [2003]). The defendant states that the information sought is likely to contain privileged information. However, this conclusory statement is insufficient to establish that the information sought is, in fact, privileged.

Section 3101(c) exempts work by expert consultants retained to assist counsel in analyzing or preparing a case from disclosure as attorney work product.

Hudson Insurance v. Oppenheim · filed 2010-04-08(c)

Furthermore, the documents are subject to the attorney work product privilege (see CPLR 3101 [c]). Such privilege extends to experts retained as consultants to assist in analyzing or preparing the case, “as an adjunct to the lawyer’s strategic thought processes, thus qualifying for complete exemption from disclosure” (Santariga v McCann, 161 AD2d 320, 321 [1990] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Oakwood Realty Corp. v HRH Constr. Corp., 51 AD3d 747, 749 [2008]).

Section 3101(b) protects privileged social work records from disclosure unless the client waives the privilege by putting her condition in controversy.

Keith v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2010-04-20(b)

However, privileged material, such as information obtained by a social worker, in a professional capacity, from a client (CPLR 4508 [a]), is generally immune from discovery, much like information obtained by a medical doctor in connection with the treatment of a patient (CPLR 4504 [a]; 3101 [b]; Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 284 [1989]; Kaplowitz v Borden, Inc., 189 AD2d 90, 92 [1993]; Scalone v Phelps Mem. Hosp. Ctr., 184 AD2d 65, 70-71 [1992]). ... After the withdrawal of her loss of consortium claim, her only remaining claim, for wrongful death, is in a representative capacity, thereby precluding disclosure of her mental health/social work records (see Napoli v Crovello, 49 AD3d 699, 699-700 [2008]; Scalone at 73).

Section 3101 excludes privileged material from disclosure, but an unprivileged page relevant to the case may be used in discovery.

Coventry Real Estate Advisors, L.L.C. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp. · filed 2011-06-07(b), (c)

The pages are also not discoverable because they are privileged (see CPLR 3101 [b], [c]; 4503). However, the last page is not privileged, and it has relevance beyond the uncharged crime since it alleges that an executive of one of the defendants ordered a “data dump” on his computer. Indeed, plaintiffs may use the last page to discover if the executive deleted from his computer material relevant to this case. Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to use the last page in discovery.

Section 3101(b) exempts privileged information from disclosure unless the privilege has been waived.

Paliouras v. Donohue · filed 2011-11-29(b)

Once the privilege is validly asserted, it must be recognized and the information sought may not be disclosed unless it is demonstrated that the privilege has been waived (see CPLR 3101 [b]; 4504 [a]; Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d at 287; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d at 294).

Section 3101(c) requires a party withholding documents as attorney work product to establish that they qualify for that protection.

Colantonio v. Mercy Medical Center · filed 2013-01-09(c)

Moreover, the defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing that three of the four documents, namely those designated as numbers 88 and 89 in the privilege log and number 11 in the supplemental privilege log, constitute attorney work product (see Bib Constr. Co. v City of Poughkeepsie, 260 AD2d 590, 591 [1999]; Doe v Poe, 244 AD2d 450, 451-452 [1997], affd 92 NY2d 864 [1998]; Bras v Atlas Constr. Corp., 153 AD2d 914, 915 [1989]; see also Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 381 [1991]).

Section 3101(c) protects an expert appraisal report prepared at counsel’s direction as an aid in litigation as attorney work product.

915 2nd Pub Inc. v. QBE Insurance · filed 2013-06-25(c)

There is no dispute that the subject appraisal report was prepared by an expert at defense counsel’s direction as an aid in litigation, and thus, the report was protected as attorney work product (see Hudson Ins. Co. v Oppenheim, 72 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2010]; CPLR 3101 [c]).

Section 3101(a) makes relevant and necessary information discoverable, while section 3101(b) protects privileged matter from disclosure when a person entitled to assert the privilege objects.

Perez v. Fleischer · filed 2014-11-14(a), (b)

Defendants here provided an expert affidavit, supported by scientific articles, opining that medical, educational and IQ information concerning plaintiff’s immediate family members is relevant, material and necessary to determining the causes and contributing factors related to plaintiffs numerous conditions, thereby rendering this information discoverable (see CPLR 3101 [a]; compare Mendez v Equities By Marcy, 24 AD3d 138, 138 [2005]). ... A subdivision of the main disclosure statute provides that “[u]pon objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege, privileged matter shall not be obtainable” (CPLR 3101 [b]).

Section 3101(b) protects privileged matter from disclosure when a person entitled to assert the privilege objects.

PerezvFleischer · filed 2014-11-20(b)

A subdivision of the main disclosure statute provides that "[u]pon objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege, privileged matter shall not be obtainable" (CPLR 3101 [b]). Medical records are protected by a doctor-patient privilege and cannot be disclosed without consent or a waiver of the privilege (see CPLR 4504 [a]; Murphy v Hamilton, 90 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2011]).

Section 3101(d)(2) protects materials prepared exclusively for litigation, so investigators’ notes are not protected when interviews were not conducted in anticipation of litigation.

State of New York, ex rel. Murray v. Baumslag · filed 2015-12-03(d)(2)

The investigators’ notes are not protected by the work-product privilege since there is no evidence that the investigators conducted their interviews with Baumslag and other professors allegedly involved in the improper spending in anticipation of litigation (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]; see Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 376-377 [1991]).

Section 3101(c) absolutely protects attorney work product, while section 3101(d)(2) conditionally protects material prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation.

Geffner v. Mercy Medical Center · filed 2015-02-18(c), (d)(2)

Attorney work product under CPLR 3101 (c), which is subject to an absolute privilege, is generally limited to materials prepared by an attorney, while acting as an attorney, which contain his or her legal analysis, conclusions, theory, or strategy (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 109 AD3d 7, 12 [2013]; Salzer v Farm Family Life Ins. Co., 280 AD2d 844, 846 [2001]). ... Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, she did not meet her burden of establishing that the audio recording of an interview she conducted with the defendant Nicoletta Starks prior to the commencement of the instant action constituted attorney work product. ... The plaintiff argues, in the alternative, that the recording constitutes trial preparation material, which is subject to a conditional privilege under CPLR 3101 (d) (2). However, the conclusory assertions set forth in her supporting affidavit are insufficient to meet her burden of establishing, with specificity, that the recording was prepared “exclusively in anticipation of litigation” (Bombard v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 647, 648 [2004]; see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]; Agovino v Taco Bell 5083, 225 AD2d 569, 571 [1996]; Chakmakjian v NYRAC, Inc., 154 AD2d 644, 645 [1989]).

Section 3101(b) exempts privileged information from disclosure even when the information is material and necessary under section 3101(a)(1).

Washington v. Alpha-K Family Medical Practice, P.C. · filed 2015-05-06(b)

Even when the party seeking disclosure has demonstrated that such disclosure is material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action (see CPLR 3101 [a] [1]), discovery may still be precluded where, as here, the requested information is privileged and thus exempted from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (b) (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]; Farkas v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 97 AD3d 720, 721 [2012]; Paliouras v Donohue, 89 AD3d 1070, 1071 [2011]).

Section 3101(d)(2) protects attorney work product from disclosure, subject to the crime-fraud exception when probable cause shows the communications furthered client wrongdoing.

Stevens v. Cahill · filed 2015-10-07(d)(2)

While ordinarily attorney-client communications and the attorney’s work product would be shielded from disclosure, the documents submitted for in camera review provide adequate reason to apply the exception to the privilege rules.

Section 3101(c) protects documents prepared by counsel as an attorney that reflect counsel’s legal research, analysis, conclusions, theory, or strategy.

Fox Paine & Co., LLC v. Houston Cas. Co. · filed 2016-04-21(c)

The attorney work product privilege (CPLR 3101[c]) applies only to documents prepared by counsel, as an attorney, which reflect counsel's learning and professional skills, including legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory and strategy ( Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co. , 23 AD2d 190, 190-191 [1st Dept 2005]).

Section 3101(c) does not exempt materials obtained through freedom of information requests from disclosure when they do not reflect counsel’s legal research, analysis, or strategy.

Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc. · filed 2016-08-10(c)

However, this material cannot be characterized as being “uniquely the product of [the plaintiffs’ counsel’s] learning and professional skills” or as reflecting his “legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy” (Hoffman v Ro-San Manor, 73 AD2d at 211). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the Atlanta defendants’ motion which was to compel the plaintiffs to disclose this material.

Section 3101(c) protects materials prepared by an attorney acting as an attorney that contain legal analysis and trial strategy.

New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics v. Campaign for One New York, Inc. · filed 2016-09-08(c)

The attorney work product doctrine shields the work product of an attorney from disclosure (CPLR 3101 [c]). ... The doctrine is “narrowly construed” and includes “only materials prepared by an attorney, acting as an attorney, which contain his analysis and trial strategy” (Graf, 94 AD2d at 824).

Section 3101(d)(2) does not protect documents created as part of ordinary business rather than primarily in anticipation of litigation.

Bank of New York Mellon v. WMC Mortgage, LLC · filed 2016-06-23(d)(2)

The motion court correctly found that the repurchase analyses are not protected work product (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]), because the documents were not “primarily prepared in anticipation of litigation,” but were “an inherent and longstanding part of [WMC’s] business” (MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 93 AD3d 574, 574, 575 [1st Dept 2012]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v WMC Mtge., LLC, 2015 WL 1650835, *18, *20, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 49158, *51, *56 [D Conn, Apr. 14, 2015, Nos. 3:12-CV-933 (CSH), 3:12-CV-969 (CSH), 3:12-CV-1699 (CSH), 3:13-CV-1347 (CSH)]).

Section 3101(d)(2) protects attorney work product; a party claiming that protection for breach analyses must show they were primarily prepared in anticipation of litigation.

ACE Sec. Corp. v. DB Structured Prods., Inc. · filed 2016-10-12(d)(2)

For the reasons that follow, the Court determines that DBSP's Breach Analysis documents must be produced. ... To establish that the Breach Analyses are protected work product, DBSP must demonstrate that the documents were "primarily prepared in anticipation of litigation and are, thus, privileged matter." MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 93 AD3d 574 , 574 (1st Dep't 2012).

Section 3101(d)(2) permits discovery of factual information a witness gave counsel during an interview when the witness will testify and the information cannot be obtained from the witness directly.

Disla v. City of New York · filed 2016-09-15(d)(2)

Hence, should Polanco testify at the new trial, any factual information that he provided to ECB&A when he was interviewed by one of its attorneys is properly discoverable, and potentially usable at trial, under CPLR 3101 (d) (2) (cf. People v Kozlowski, 11 NY3d 223, 245 [2008] [“the mere fact that a narrative witness statement is transcribed by an attorney is not sufficient to render the statement ‘work product’ ” subject to absolute privilege under CPLR 3101 (c), rather than trial preparation material subject to a conditional privilege under CPLR 3101 (d) (2)], cert denied 556 US 1282 [2009]).

Attorney work product protection applies to materials prepared by counsel acting as counsel that reflect a lawyer’s legal skills.

Venture v. Preferred Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 2017-09-26(c)

“Furthermore, attorney work product applies only to documents prepared by counsel acting as such, and to materials uniquely the product of a lawyer’s learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney’s legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy” (id. at 190-191).

Section 3101(c) protects attorney work product prepared by an attorney acting as an attorney that contains legal analysis or trial strategy; the consultant’s report did not qualify.

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc. · filed 2017-11-09(c)

We further find that the report was not protected from disclosure as attorney work product, as this “privilege should be narrowly applied to materials prepared by an attorney, acting as an attorney, which contain his [or her] analysis and trial strategy” (Kinge v State of New York, 302 AD2d 667, 670 [2003] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added]; see CPLR 3101 [c]; Cioffi v S.M. Foods, Inc., 142 AD3d 520, 522-523 [2016]; Hoffman v Ro-San Manor, 73 AD2d 207, 210-211 [1980]).

Section 3101(c) protects attorney work product, but a client waives that protection by intentionally sharing the documents with a third party.

Matter of Gartner v. New York State Attorney General's Off. · filed 2018-04-05(c)

The Attorney General's Office cannot claim the attorney work product privilege for work done by a private law firm on behalf of a non-government client such as LICH, which documents were then sent to the Attorney General's Office. LICH waived confidentiality and the related privilege by intentionally sending the documents to a third party.

Section 3101(c) gives absolute protection to attorney work product, narrowly limited to materials prepared by an attorney acting as an attorney that contain legal analysis or trial strategy.

Matter of Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Attorney Gen. of N.Y. · filed 2018-05-03(c)

CPLR 3101 (c) grants absolute immunity from disclosure to the "work product of an attorney." ... Because of the absolute nature of the privilege, the attorney work product doctrine is "narrowly applied to materials prepared by an attorney, acting as an attorney, which contain his or her analysis and trial strategy" ( NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Ins. Trust v People Care Inc. , 155 AD3d 1208, 2011 [2017] [brackets omitted]; see Forman v Henkin , 30 NY3d 656, 661-662 [2018]; Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr. , 125 AD3d 802, 802 [2015]; Siegel & Connors, NY Prac §§ 347-348 [6th ed 2018]). ... Our review of the Common Interest Agreement reveals no such legal analysis.

Section 3101(b) protects privileged material from disclosure when an entitled person objects; a court must review disputed documents before granting protection when some may fall outside the asserted privilege.

Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Client Server Direct, Inc. · filed 2017-12-22(b)

Nonetheless, “privileged matter shall not be obtainable” when there is an “objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege” (CPLR 3101 [b]; see generally Rawlins v St. Joseph’s Hosp. Health Ctr., 108 AD3d 1191, 1191-1192 [4th Dept 2013]), and a court has the discretion pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) to “make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device.” ... Inasmuch as there may be documents responsive to demand No. 9 that were prepared by the bank for its own business purposes and are in its possession (see id.), we conclude that the court abused its discretion in granting the protective order without first reviewing documents responsive to that demand.

CPLR 3101 requires a party seeking to protect materials from disclosure to establish its right to protection; claim file documents created after an action begins are not automatically protected.

Rickard v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. · filed 2018-09-28

To the extent that Lalka (128 AD3d at 1508) holds that any documents in a claim file created after commencement of an action in a SUM case in which there has been no denial or disclaimer of coverage are per se protected from discovery, it should not be followed. Rather, a party seeking a protective order under any of the categories of protected materials in CPLR 3101 bears "the burden of establishing any right to protection" ( Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank , 78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]; see Heimbach , 114 AD3d at 1222).

Section 3101(b) bars disclosure of privileged medical records unless the privilege has been waived.

Peterson v. Estate of John Rozansky · filed 2019-04-03(b)

Once the physician-patient privilege is validly asserted, it must be recognized, and the information sought may not be disclosed unless it is demonstrated that the privilege has been waived ( see CPLR 3101[b]; 4504[a]; Dillenbeck v Hess , 73 NY2d at 287).

CPLR 3101(b) protects privileged medical information from disclosure, but relevant, nonprivileged information within medical records may be discoverable.

Mullen v. Wishner · filed 2019-05-29(b)

Even if the defendants had demonstrated that the medical records of the nonparty witness were material and necessary to the action, "discovery still may be precluded if the requested information is privileged and thus exempted from discovery" ( Dillenbeck v Hess , 73 NY2d at 287; see CPLR 3101[b]; Farkas v Orange Regional Med. Ctr ., 97 AD3d 720, 721). ... Notwithstanding the foregoing, privileged medical records may contain nonprivileged information that could be discoverable if relevant ( see J.Z. v South Oaks Hosp. , 67 AD3d 645, 645-646; Moore v St. John's Episcopal Hosp. , 89 AD2d 618, 619).

Section 3101(b) protects privileged communications from disclosure, but a party must establish that the communications are legal rather than business in character.

Saran v. Chelsea GCA Realty Partnership, L.P. · filed 2019-07-17(b)

CPLR 3101(b) provides that, "[u]pon objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege, privileged matter shall not be obtainable." ... Here, the defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing a right to protection of the subject emails ( see Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank , 78 NY2d at 377). The communications relate to the business of the defendants, rather than legal issues ( see Cooper-Rutter Assoc. v Anchor Natl. Life Ins. Co. , 168 AD2d 663), and nothing stated by in-house counsel in the emails sets him apart as a legal advisor in the discussion.

Section 3101(c) protects an attorney’s work product, but does not shield communications that contain no legal advice or work product.

Venture v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2020-02-04(c)

Pleadings, communication with opposing counsel, and communications solely between [*3]investigators, should be produced without redactions, since they do not contain legal advice, a request for legal advice, attorney work product, or any other category of privileged information ( see CPLR 3101(b), (c), (d)(2); Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. , 78 NY2d, at 376-377).

Section 3101(c) protects materials that are the unique product of an attorney's professional skills as attorney work product.

Matter of Appellate Advocates v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision · filed 2020-06-26(c)

Accordingly, they were properly withheld by respondent as exempt from FOIL disclosure as privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product.

Section 3101(c) exempts attorney work product from disclosure.

Matter of Stengel v. Vance · filed 2021-03-23(c)

Assuming without deciding that the spreadsheet maintained by DANY, as described in respondents' answer, constituted responsive records, it was properly withheld on the ground that it contained attorney work product, which is specifically exempted from disclosure by state statute (CPLR 3101[c]) and therefore exempt from FOIL (Public Officers Law § 87[2][a]; see Matter of Turner v Department of Fin. of City of N.Y. , 242 AD2d 146, 148 [1st Dept 1998]).

Section 3101 protects an insurer’s claim notes from disclosure when they contain attorney-client communications and material prepared to defend litigation, even if the insurer has not yet rejected a separate coverage claim.

1415, LLC v. New York Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co. · filed 2020-03-11(b), (d)(2)

Upon our in camera inspection, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the withheld material was protected by the attorney-client privilege and was privileged material prepared for litigation. ... While the material 1415 LLC seeks from New York Marine was prepared before the determination to reject 1415 LLC's claim for defense and indemnification in the personal injury action, the withheld material concerns the defense of Park Developers in the third-party action brought by 1415 LLC. It consists of communications with the attorney representing Park Developers in the third-party action and other information relating to the defense of the third-party action. Thus, under the circumstances, New York Marine demonstrated that the withheld material should not be disclosed ( see VGFC Realty II, LLC v D'Angelo , 114 AD3d 765 , 766; McClier Corp. v United States Rebar, Inc. , 66 AD3d 416 ; All Waste Sys. v Gulf Ins. Co. , 295 AD2d 379, 380; Grotallio v Soft Drink Leasing Corp. , 97 AD2d 383).

Section 3101(d)(2) protects material prepared for litigation unless the requesting party shows substantial need and cannot obtain its substantial equivalent without undue hardship.

Katz v. Camp Bnoseinu · filed 2020-03-18(d)(2)

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the notes and records created by the defendant's examining physician were not discoverable because they were privileged as material prepared for litigation, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she had a substantial need for the material or that she was unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the material by other means ( see CPLR 3101[d][2]; Giordano v New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth. , 84 AD3d 729, 732; Martinez v KSM Holding , 294 AD2d 111; Barrowman v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. , 252 AD2d 946; Marziano v City of Yonkers , 105 AD2d 832).

Section 3101(b) precludes disclosure of privileged information but permits inquiry into nonprivileged information.

Jayne v. Smith · filed 2020-06-03(b)

However, even relevant discovery is subject to preclusion if the requested information is privileged ( see CPLR 3101[b]; Dillenbeck v Hess , 73 NY2d 278, 287; see also 22 NYCRR 221.2[a]). ... Nevertheless, the plaintiff is entitled to inquire into any nonprivileged information regarding the patient ( see Mullen v Wishner , 172 AD3d at 1389; Bellamy v State of New York , 136 AD3d at 1248; J.Z. v South Oaks Hosp. , 67 AD3d 645, 646; Sohan v Long Is. Coll. Hosp. , 282 AD2d 597; Lee v New York City Tr. Auth. , 257 AD2d 611).

CPLR 3101 does not treat 8 USC § 1367 as a privilege against disclosure of T visa application materials.

Khatskevich v. Victor · filed 2020-06-18

The only ground which plaintiff advances, 8 USC § 1367, is not a privilege for purposes of CPLR 3101 or waiver under CPLR 3122 ( see Joseph v Signal Intl. LLC , 2014 WL 12597592, at *6 [ED Tex 2014]).

CPLR 3101(c) protects attorney work product from disclosure.

Matter of Stengel v. Vance · filed 2021-10-05(c)

In both proceedings, the court properly found that the records sought were attorney work product, which is specifically protected from disclosure by CPLR 3101(c) ( see Matter of Stengel v Vance , 192 AD3d 571, 571 [1st Dept 2021]).

Section 3101(d)(2) protects interview notes found to be attorney work product from disclosure in response to a subpoena.

Matter of Angelica A. (Amalia R.--Angel A.) · filed 2021-12-07(d)(2)

Contrary to respondent's contention, the court providently found, after an in camera review, that certain interview notes withheld by the District Attorney's Office in response to a subpoena served by respondent were protected as attorney work product ( see CPLR 3101(d)(2); see also People v Johnson , 292 AD2d 284, 285 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 698 [2002]).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material necessary to an action, and a party claiming a file is immune from discovery must substantiate that claim.

Wasserman v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2021-04-07(a)

CPLR 3101(a) directs that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." ... Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that Amica failed to meet its burden of establishing that the SUM file was immune from discovery.

Section 3101(c) protects materials reflecting a lawyer’s legal research, analysis, conclusions, theory, or strategy, but not ordinary internal correspondence.

Gottwald v. Geragos · filed 2022-05-03(c)

Defendants' internal correspondence concerning the Tweet at the heart of this litigation are not materials uniquely the product of a lawyer's learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney's legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory, or strategy, and are thus not privileged ( see CPLR 3101[c]; Gottwald v Sebert , 172 AD3d 445, 445 [1st Dept 2019]).

Attorney work product protected by section 3101(c) can be withheld from disclosure under FOIL.

Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York State Off. of Ct. Admin. · filed 2024-02-08(c)

As an alternative holding, we find that respondent properly determined that the records at issue were exempt under the attorney-client privilege ( see Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , __ NY3d __, 2023 NY Slip Op 06466 [2023]; CPLR 4503[a][1]) and the attorney work product privilege (CPLR 3101[c]; Public Officers Law § 87[2][a]).

CPLR 3101(b) protects privileged information from disclosure, but nonmedical information about a patient's prior aggressive or violent acts may be disclosed after an in camera review.

Gooden v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. · filed 2023-05-31(b)

However, relevant discovery is subject to preclusion if the requested information is privileged ( see id. § 3101[b]; Dillenbeck v Hess , 73 NY2d 278, 287). ... Information of a nonmedical nature regarding prior aggressive or violent acts is not privileged ( see Jayne v Smith , 184 AD3d 557, 559; J.Z. v South Oaks Hosp. , 67 AD3d 645, 646; Sohan v Long Is. Coll. Hosp. , 282 AD2d 597). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an in camera review of the subject hospital records, to determine which records contain nonprivileged information that is subject to disclosure, and thereafter disclosure of such records ( see J.Z. v South Oaks Hosp. , 67 AD3d at 645; see also Sohan v Long Is. Coll. Hosp. , 282 AD2d at 598).

Section 3101(b) protects privileged matter from disclosure when an entitled person objects; the court may inspect disputed documents in camera before deciding whether to compel production.

Town New Dev. Sales & Mktg. v. Lex 47th Dev. LLC · filed 2023-07-07(b)

However, CPLR 3101 provides that "[u]pon objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege, privileged matter shall not be obtainable" (CPLR 3101 [b]). ... Before determining whether to compel production of the documents, the court will first conduct an in-camera inspection ( see e.g. Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v Kaplan , 107 AD3d 502, 502 [1st Dept 2013]).

Section 3101(b) bars disclosure of privileged medical information unless the privilege has been waived.

Hausman v. Smith · filed 2023-08-30(b)

Once the physician-patient privilege is validly asserted, it must be recognized, and the information sought may not be disclosed unless it is demonstrated that the privilege has been waived ( see CPLR 3101[b]; 4504[a]; Dillenbeck v Hess , 73 NY2d at 287).

Section 3101 allows in camera review of subpoenaed documents to determine whether they are protected from disclosure before the court rules on a protective order or motion to compel.

Bronstein v. Omega Constr. Group, Inc. · filed 2023-11-01

In this particular case, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Supreme Court to conduct an in camera review of the documents requested in the subpoena before it determines whether to compel compliance with the subpoena or to grant a protective order ( see City of New York v Church St. Realty Assoc. , 196 AD2d 698; James v Metro N. Commuter R.R. , 166 AD2d 266, 268; see also Wasserman v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. , 193 AD3d at 798; Donohue v Fokas , 112 AD3d 665, 667).

Section 3101 protects privileged matter and attorney work product from disclosure; trial preparation materials require a showing of substantial need and undue hardship.

VXI Lux Holdco S.A R.L. v. SIC Holdings, LLC · filed 2023-07-13

New York courts favor open and liberal discovery, but the CPLR establishes three categories of protected materials that are immune from disclosure. Privileged matter and attorney work product are absolutely immune from discovery, and trial preparation materials are subject to disclosure only upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship (CPLR 3101; Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. v Chem. Bank , 78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]). Here, defendants have not demonstrated that the email communications, generated on property owned by Symbio, and now plaintiff, is somehow immune from disclosure.

Documents not prepared in anticipation of litigation are not protected by the work product or trial preparation privileges under section 3101.

People v. National Rifle Assn. of Am. · filed 2023-12-28(c), (d)(2)

The Aronson documents are not protected by either the work product or trial preparation privileges because they were not prepared in anticipation of litigation ( see generally CPLR 3101[c], [d][2]; MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 93 AD3d 574, 574 [1st Dept 2012]; Coastal Oil N.Y. v Peck , 184 AD2d 241, 241 [1st Dept 1992]).

CPLR 3101(b) gives privileged matter absolute immunity from disclosure; when privilege cannot be determined from the papers, the court may review the documents in camera.

All in 1 Spot with Theratalk, SLP, PT, OT, Psychology, PLLC v. Noor Staffing Group, LLC · filed 2024-04-05(b)

While New York courts generally favor open and liberal discovery, "CPLR 4503(a) states that a privilege exists for confidential communications made between attorney and client in the course of professional employment, and CPLR 3101 (b) vests privileged matter with absolute immunity" (Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. v Chem. Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]). ... The Court cannot discern from the papers alone whether the withheld documents are privileged, as both Mr. Scully and Mr. Shaw appear to have provided both business and legal advice. In those circumstances, the Court has the discretion to direct an in camera review to assess claims of privilege (Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v Kaplan, 107 AD3d 502, 502 [1st Dept 2013]).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of material and necessary matter, but a court may review requested documents in camera before ordering production to determine the scope of disclosure and protect privacy.

Smith v. Triple-O Mech., Inc. · filed 2024-07-03(a)

CPLR 3101 (a) requires "full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." ... Here, although plaintiff established that the documents requested are central to his claims ( see Gitlin v Chirinkin , 71 AD3d 728, 729 [2d Dept 2010]), defendants are nevertheless entitled to an in camera review before producing the documents "to determine whether full disclosure is required and to minimize the intrusion into [defendants'] privacy" ( Carter v Fantauzzo , 256 AD2d 1189, 1190 [4th Dept 1998]; see CPLR 3103 [a]; [*2]Neuman v Frank , 82 AD3d 1642, 1644 [4th Dept 2011]).

Section 3101(c) protects materials that reflect an attorney’s legal research, analysis, conclusions, theory, or strategy; an attorney’s involvement in creating a document alone does not establish protection.

Coads v. Nassau County · filed 2024-10-11(c)

To the extent that the disputed documents and communications were created by attorneys, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the disputed documents and communications were uniquely the product of those attorneys' learning and professional skills or reflective of their legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory, or strategy ( see Cioffi v S.M. Foods, Inc. , 142 AD3d at 523).

Section 3101(c) protects an attorney's legal analysis prepared in anticipation of litigation as work product; confidential sharing and inadvertent production do not necessarily waive that protection.

Midway Wind, LLC v. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, Inc. · filed 2024-10-30(c)

Even assuming, arguendo, that the email chain is not subject to the attorney-client privilege, it plainly contains privileged attorney work-product, as the particular subject paragraph contains details of legal advice rendered to the plaintiff in anticipation of litigation by outside counsel assessing the plaintiff's potential claims against the defendant herein.

Section 3101(c) protects attorney work product from disclosure unless the client voluntarily and intentionally shares it with an adversary.

Perkins v. State of New York · filed 2024-12-17(c)

Under CPLR § 3101 (c), attorney work product is subject to absolute privilege. Unless the attorney work product was shared by claimant voluntarily and intentionally with his adversary, it is entitled to absolute immunity.

Section 3101(c) protects a district attorney's case datasheet as attorney work product and does not require its disclosure with redactions.

Matter of Law Off. of Cyrus Joubin, Esq. v. Manhattan Dist. Attorney's Off. · filed 2025-01-07(c)

The court properly concluded , after an in camera inspection, that the subject datasheet constituted attorney work product protected from disclosure by CPLR 3101(c) (Public Officers Law §87[2][a]), and that it need not be disclosed subject to redactions ( see Matter of Stengel v Vance , 198 AD3d 434, 434 [1st Dept 2021]).

Section 3101(b) exempts privileged information from disclosure even when the threshold for medical discovery is met.

Earnest v. Town of Queensbury · filed 2024-12-11(b)

Once this preliminary burden is satisfied, however, discovery still may be precluded if the requested information is privileged and thus exempt from disclosure (CPLR §3101[b]; id . at 287).

Section 3101 protects privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product from disclosure, including communications with an attorney consulted to help prepare a case.

Schwartz v. Schwartz · filed 2025-05-02(b), (c)

Contrary to defendant's remaining contention in appeal No. 3, the court properly granted that part of plaintiff's cross-motion seeking to quash certain subpoenas inasmuch as the information defendant sought through those subpoenas consisted of communications between plaintiff, her counsel, and another attorney with whom they were consulting "to assist in analyzing or preparing the case" and thus constituted privileged attorney-client communications and non-discoverable attorney work product ( Beach v Touradji Capital Mgt., LP , 99 AD3d 167, 170 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 3101 [b], [c]; 4503 [a] [1]; Banach v Dedalus Found. , Inc. , 132 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2015]; Nicastro v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 117 AD3d 1545, 1547 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 998 [2014]).

Section 3101 places the burden on the party opposing discovery to show that requested material is exempt or immune, and permits a hearing and in camera review when privilege remains unresolved.

M.P. v. Davidson · filed 2025-05-27

The party opposing the discovery request bears the burden of showing the requested items are exempt or immune from disclosure (see NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Ins. Trust v People Care Inc., 155 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2017]). ... For all of the above reasons, the Court grants the motion to the extent of setting the matter down for a hearing. Plaintiffs are given leave to subpoena both Ohel and Shlomo Nahmias to provide testimony and produce relevant documentary evidence for the hearing. The subpoena to Ohel should direct that Ohel produce any relevant documentation to the Court in advance of the hearing for in camera review.

Section 3101(c) protects an attorney's analysis and conclusions as work product from disclosure under FOIL, even with redactions.

Matter of Law Off. of Cyrus Joubin v. Manhattan Dist. Attorney's Off. · filed 2025-11-18(c)

As a result, CPLR 3101(c) protects the datasheet from disclosure under FOIL, and it is not subject to disclosure even with redactions ( see Public Officers Law § 87[2][a]; Matter of Stengel v Vance , 198 AD3d 434, 434 [1st Dept 2021]).

Section 3101(c) does not make records attorney work product merely because an attorney compiled them.

Matter of Bhambhani v. Westchester County Dist. Attorney's Off. · filed 2025-12-01(c)

Records do not become attorney work product merely because they were compiled by an attorney ( see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. , 37 Misc 3d 1232[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52298[U], *10 [Sup Ct, New York County 2012]).

Section 3101(b) bars disclosure of privileged matter, but the party asserting attorney-client privilege must establish that it applies.

Fordham Dormitory Tower LLC v. Tress · filed 2025-09-02(b)

As noted above, the attorney-client privilege prevents the discovery of any confidential communications, made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, between an attorney and his/her client ( Ambac Assur. Corp. at 623; Gomberg at 312; New York Times Newspaper Div. of New York Times Co. at 171; see CPLR § 3101[b]; CPLR § 4503[a][1]). ... Here, contrary to the assertion by Tress Sr., Sun, AA, ZM, GC, Sabbagh, and Kassin, the evidence presented by plaintiffs, namely, the excerpts from Tress Sr. and Sabbagh's deposition testimony establishes that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to any communications they had with Feuerstein.

Section 3101(c) protects attorney work product from disclosure, including a former attorney's explanation to current counsel of actions taken in the same legal matter.

Matter of Echtenkamp · filed 2026-01-09(c)

In this posture, both documents constitute attorney work product which is exempt from disclosure.

Section 3101(b) protects an insurer’s correspondence with its attorneys from discovery when the correspondence is privileged.

Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance v. Hartford Insurance Group · filed 1974-01-11(b)

... we agree that Kansas City’s correspondence with its attorneys is absolutely privileged and not discoverable (CPLR 3101, subd. [b]; see, generally, Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], §§ 425-439).

Section 3101(b) does not protect every conversation among litigation committee members; the party asserting attorney-client privilege must show facts establishing that the communication is privileged.

Delta Financial Corp. v. Morrison · filed 2007-01-26(b)

The court finds that there is no per se privilege or “blanket privilege” for every communication between members of a litigation committee based solely upon their membership in a litigation committee. It is essential that the proponents of the privilege set forth facts and evidence to support the invocation of the attorney-client privilege. Notwithstanding that nonlawyers are conducting a conversation, a communication is subject to the attorney-client privilege if the record is clear that a conversation with counsel is the subject of the communication between the nonlawyers.

Section 3101(b) makes documents created primarily to render legal advice or services absolutely immune from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege.

VGFC Realty II, LLC v. D'Angelo · filed 2014-02-13(b)

The Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the ... plaintiffs motion which were to compel the appellant to disclose documents designated in its privilege log as GBE 0257-0260, GBE 0290-0292, and GBE 0330-0338, as those documents were absolutely immune from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege (see CPLR 3101 [b]; Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 376 [1991]).

Section 3101(b) exempts privileged information from disclosure even when a party’s physical condition is in controversy.

Williams v. McGinty · filed 1994-06-13(b)

Discovery may still be precluded if the requested information is privileged, e.g., the physician-patient privilege accorded under CPLR 4504, and thus exempted from disclosure (see, CPLR 3101 [b]; Dillenbeck v Hess, supra, at 287). ... Accordingly, since Dorothy McGinty did not waive her physician-patient privilege, the plaintiffs should have been precluded from obtaining the results of any blood alcohol test which may have been administered to her in a hospital as a result of the accident.

Section 3101(b) exempts privileged information from disclosure, and a nonparty witness does not waive the physician-patient privilege by submitting a summary judgment affidavit.

Laino v. St. Joseph's Medical Center · filed 2001-02-27(b)

Even then, however, “discovery still may be precluded if the requested information is privileged and thus exempted from disclosure (CPLR 3101 [b]),” absent a valid waiver (Dillenbeck v Hess, supra, at 287, citing CPLR 4504 [a]; Koump v Smith, supra, 25 NY2d, at 294, supra; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac 4504.19; Fisch, NY Evidence § 554 [2d ed]). ... Defendant’s contention that a nonparty somehow forfeits the privilege upon the submission of an affidavit in opposition to a summary judgment motion is advanced without the benefit of authority and is rejected by this court.

Section 3101(e) allows a party to obtain a copy of the party’s own statement even if it is unsigned.

Walker v. Erie-Lackawanna Railroad · filed 1964-09-11(e)

The fact that this statement is unsigned is of no consequence. The statute (CPLR 3101, subd. [e]) refers only to a party’s “ own statement ”, and there is no requirement that it be signed.

Section 3101(e) permits a party to obtain his own statement without showing special circumstances, including before his examination.

Bengiat v. State · filed 1965-02-11(e)

The court recognizes the recent judicial trend sanctioning the statutory purpose of eliminating the requirement that a party show special circumstances in order to obtain his own statement. ... Claimant’s cross motion is granted in all respects.

Section 3101(e) permits a party to obtain a copy of the party’s own written or signed statement, but does not permit pretrial discovery of an investigator’s notes of an oral interview.

People v. Riley · filed 1965-03-25(e)

Even in civil actions the language of CPLR 3101 (subd. [e]), providing that a party may obtain a “ copy of his own statement ”, indicates that it is applicable only to a written statement made or signed by the party. There is no right even under the liberal discovery provisions of CPLR to pretrial discovery of the notes of an oral interview made by an investigator.

Section 3101(e) entitles a party to a copy of the party’s complete statement, including statements incorporated into it.

Masone v. Paull · filed 1965-12-31(e)

Nevertheless, the Legislature has seen fit to specifically provide that ‘ ‘ A party may obtain a copy of his own statement” (CPLR 3101, subd. [e]), thus creating an exception to the rule that material prepared for litigation ordinarily is not discoverable. Pursuant to that section a party is entitled to a copy of his complete statement. In the instant case this plaintiff’s statement is not complete unless it is read with the statements of the defendant Veronica Piliero and of the witness, Gloria, and, therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to copies thereof.

Section 3101(e) entitles a party to a copy of that party's own statement.

Loughlin v. Miller · filed 1967-11-03(e)

Therefore, defendant Daniels shall forthwith deliver to counsel for defendants Miller and Hook an accurate transcript of any recorded interview or other statement of the defendant Miller and also the same, if any were recorded or taken, of the defendant Hook.

Section 3101(e) lets a party obtain a copy of the party's own statement, whether or not it was signed.

Maffeo v. Comtois · filed 1968-01-23(e)

Further, the statute sets forth specifically that a party, here the plaintiff, may obtain a copy of his own statement. (CPLR 3101, subd. [e].) ... A statement may be oral, stenographic or written and whether it is signed or not is of no significance on a motion for discovery.

Section 3101(e) requires a party to furnish copies of statements taken from an opposing party, including statements obtained by the party’s insurer.

Juskowitz v. Hahn · filed 1968-05-07(e)

Accordingly, the motion is in all respects granted, and defendant Daniels is directed to furnish to plaintiffs not later than May 15, 1968 copies of all statements taken from plaintiffs (CPLR 3101, subd. [e]) ... in the interest of justice, be available to the trier of fact.

Section 3101(e) entitles a corporation that is a party to an action to discover statements its employees gave to the opposing party.

Magee v. Faymour Development Co. · filed 1969-06-16(e)

We are of the opinion that where a corporation is a party to an action it is entitled to have discovery and inspection of any statements given by its employees to the opposing party (CPLR 3101, ... subd. [e]; CPLR 3120; Briggs v. Spencerport Road Plaza, 19 A D 2d 943; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3101.56).

Section 3101(e) allows a party to obtain a copy of the party’s own statement, including a recorded statement.

Chase v. Patron Transmission Co. · filed 1969-11-10(e)

Furthermore, we believe that discovery should be permitted pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd. [e]), for the plaintiff seeks a copy of his own statement. That section provides in unequivocal language that a party may have a copy of his own statement. ... The fact that the statement was recorded, rather than written and signed by the plaintiff, should make no difference (cf. Maffeo v. Comtois, 55 Misc 2d 779).

Section 3101(e) entitles a corporate party to a former employee’s statement about facts learned during employment, despite a claim that the statement is attorney work product or material prepared for litigation.

Saglett v. Werner Spitz Construction Co. · filed 1971-03-19(e)

The court fails to see why, in this context, any distinction should be made between an employee and a former employee of a party, so long as the facts in the statement are based on information acquired during the course of the employment. Any privilege, which might otherwise exist, by reason of a claim that such statement is the work product of an attorney or material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101, subds. [c], [d]) must give way to the superior right of a party to obtain a copy of his own statement.

Section 3101 allows a small claims plaintiff to obtain copies of his own statements to the defendant when proper circumstances are shown under UDCA § 1804.

Dorfman v. Bell · filed 1976-03-31(e)

The other portion of the motion, which requests that the ...plaintiff be given a copy of his own statements made to the defendant, is hereby granted as proper circumstances have been shown. (See UDCA, § 1804 and CPLR 3101.)

Section 3101(e) permits a party to obtain an investigator’s summary of that party’s own statement.

Nevins v. Del Pezzo · filed 1978-03-09(e)

This court believes that as a practical matter there is little distinction between a summary of a party’s statement prepared by an investigator, and the statement itself.

Section 3101(e) entitles a party to a copy of that party’s existing statement in another party’s possession or control.

McKenzie v. McKenzie · filed 1980-09-26(e)

It is clear that defendant as a party is entitled to a copy of his existing statement, if any, in the possession or control of plaintiff (CPLR 3101, subd [e]).

Section 3101(e) lets a party obtain a copy of their own statement, including a recording of their conversations; the statement need not be written.

Bayer v. Bayer · filed 1982-03-26(e)

To be a statement so as to fall within the provisions of CPLR 3101 (subd [e]), the subject matter must not necessarily be reduced to writing and contained within the four corners of a page.

Section 3101(e) allows a corporate party to obtain copies of statements its employees made to an opposing party, with disputed documents reviewed in camera.

Lynbrook Union Free School District v. Industrial Temperature Systems, Inc. · filed 1982-03-29(e)

In this case, the vague assertions of plaintiff’s counsel as to his difficulty in identifying certain documents as “statements” will not bar movant’s clear statutory right to obtain copies of any statements by its employees. A simple remedy is for this court to review the “statements” or any documents in doubt, in camera. If the court finds that any document is a “statement”, a copy shall be furnished to movant.

Section 3101(e) entitles a party to a copy of his own statement, even when the opposing party’s insurer keeps it in a separate file.

Breskin v. Litrico · filed 1982-11-16(e)

It cannot be disputed that Litrico has a right to a copy of his own statement (CPLR 3101, subd [e]), or that Breskin could be compelled to produce it if it were held by Allstate in the file maintained for his defense. ... The court holds that he can be so compelled. If the statement, in any form, is in Allstate’s Litrico file or anywhere else in its possession, Litrico is entitled to it and Allstate is bound to deliver it to Breskin so that it can be produced.

Section 3101 requires full disclosure in a multiparty action once litigation-prepared statements have been released to one party under subsection (e).

Troup v. Midland-Ross Corp. · filed 1983-05-25(e)

Nevertheless, once they were released to third-party defendant Bethlehem pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [e]), the liberal disclosure policy underlying CPLR 3101 required full disclosure in this multiparty action (see Siegel, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3101:13, 1982-1983 Pocket Part, pp 24-25).

Section 3101(e) imposes no time limit on a party’s right to obtain a copy of his own statement.

Beaver v. General Accident Fire & Life Insurance · filed 1984-12-14(e)

However, there is no time restraint imposed upon the right of a party to obtain a copy of his own statement (CPLR 3101, subd [e]).

Section 3101(e) permits plaintiffs to obtain copies of their own statements and medical materials turned over to defendants.

Sullivan v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 1985-03-25(e)

Moreover, Special Term erred in vacating item 5, plaintiffs’ demand for copies of their own statements, and item 6, plaintiffs’ demand for copies of their own medical statements, records, etc., turned over by them or others to defendants (CPLR 3101 [e]).

Section 3101(e) gives a party in a civil action the right to obtain a copy of the party’s own prior written or recorded statement.

Melendez v. City of New York · filed 1985-06-04(e)

In addition, in civil actions, a party has a right to obtain a copy of his own statement (CPLR 3101 [e]), which extends to both prior written and recorded statements.

Section 3101(e) does not make a nonparty physician’s recorded statement discoverable as a party’s own statement.

Maher v. State · filed 1986-03-05(e)

Therefore, since he is not a party, his own statement is not discoverable in this action (CPLR 3101 [e]).

Section 3101(e) allows a party to obtain transcripts of its employees’ depositions from other actions when an opponent may use them for impeachment at trial.

Zarate v. Mount Sinai Hospital · filed 1989-01-18(e)

Practically, since we are on the eve of trial and to avoid an unnecessary burden to Otis, the motion will be granted to the extent of ordering Otis to produce forthwith EBT transcripts of any Mt. Sinai employee which it may use at trial for impeachment purposes.

Section 3101(e) lets a party obtain a copy of the party's own statement in discovery, including an audio recording.

Theisen v. Sunnen · filed 1992-09-24(e)

CPLR 3101 (e) provides, in unequivocal language, that "[a] party may obtain a copy of his own statement” in discovery, and the fact that a statement is recorded rather than written and signed does not, in any manner, impede its discoverability as a party’s statement.

Section 3101(e) entitles a corporation to obtain statements its employees made to an opposing party.

Joseph v. Angstrom, Inc. · filed 1993-11-19(e)

A party may obtain a copy of his own statement and, if that party is a corporation, it is entitled to obtain any statements made by its employees to an opposing party (CPLR 3101 [e]; Kaye v M & J Assocs., 46 AD2d 894; Briggs v Spencerport Rd. Plaza, 19 AD2d 943).

CPLR 3101(e) entitles a party to a copy of their own statement, but the trial court may defer its production until after the party’s deposition.

Le v. Putnam · filed 1997-06-05(e)

Although a party to litigation is entitled to a copy of his or her own statement under CPLR 3101 (e) (see, Joseph v Angstrom, Inc., 198 AD2d 863; Sands v News Am. Publ., 161 AD2d 30, 40; see generally, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3101:46, at 68-70), "[n]othing in the CPLR requires any one disclosure device to be used before another” (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3101:43, at 67). ... In these circumstances, we conclude that Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in its resolution of the motions to compel.

Section 3101(e) permits discovery of documents to the extent that they contain statements by a party.

Winiecki v. Melroe Co. · filed 1998-07-06(e)

Finally, the subject documents the plaintiffs received from the American Trial Lawyers Association are properly discoverable to the extent that they represent statements by the defendants (see, CPLR 3101 [e]).

Section 3101(e) entitles parties to copies of their own statements recorded in an opposing expert’s notes for litigation, but does not require disclosure of the expert’s other notes.

K. S. v. Incorparated Village of Garden City · filed 1997-12-01(e)

The plaintiffs are entitled to copies of those portions of the handwritten notes of the examining psychiatrist of the Incorporated Village of Garden City which contain the statements of the infant plaintiffs made to the examining psychiatrist and recorded by him for the purposes of this litigation (see, CPLR 3101 [e]; DiMichel v South Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 NY2d 184, 194, cert denied sub nom. Poole v Consolidated Rail Corp., 510 US 816; Sands v News Am. Publ., 161 AD2d 30, 40; Sullivan v New York City Tr. Auth., 109 AD2d 879, 880). The Village is not otherwise required to provide the plaintiffs with the psychiatrist’s notes upon which his detailed written report is based (see, Pernice v Devora, 238 AD2d 558; King Elecs. v American Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 232 AD2d 273; Weinberger v Lensclean Inc., 198 AD2d 58).

Section 3101(e) entitles a party to a copy of its own statements held by opposing counsel that will be introduced against it at trial.

Stipes v. Works · filed 1999-06-01(e)

However, the appellants are entitled to a copy of their statements in the possession of the plaintiffs counsel which will be introduced at trial against them (see, CPLR 3101 [e]; Sands v News Am. Publ., 161 AD2d 30).

Section 3101(e) makes a party’s prior statements discoverable.

Marcano v. City of New York · filed 1999-09-27(e)

The plaintiffs’ prior statements are discoverable pursuant to CPLR 3101 (e).

Section 3101(e) requires disclosure of the complete notes of a party’s statements, not just the portions recording those statements.

Maisch v. Hospitals · filed 2000-12-27(e)

Supreme Court properly granted that part of the motion of defendant Theodore G. Costich, M.D. (defendant) seeking to compel discovery of statements made by defendant that are reflected in notes taken by plaintiffs during conversations with him (see, CPLR 3101 [e]). The court erred, however, in failing to order that those notes be disclosed in their entirety.

CPLR 3101(e) entitles a party to disclosure of its employee’s statement given to an investigator for the opposing party.

Lowman v. Dealer Storage Corp. · filed 2006-04-11(e)

The appellant is entitled to disclosure of the statement given by one of its employees to an investigator for the plaintiff (see CPLR 3101 [e]; Kaye v M & J Assoc., 46 AD2d 894 [1974]; Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3101.56).

Section 3101(e) requires a party possessing an opposing party’s own statement to disclose it on demand before trial.

Vaz v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2011-06-14(e)

Accordingly, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the defendant was required to disclose the MVA form, which constituted the plaintiffs “own statement” (CPLR 3101 [e]), upon the plaintiffs demand prior to trial (see CPLR 3101 [a], [e]).

Section 3101(e) requires disclosure of an affidavit insofar as it contains the opposing party's own statement.

Vikki-lynn A. v. Zewin · filed 2021-10-08(e)

With respect to the merits, we agree with the court that the affidavit of Davis, insofar as it contained a party statement of defendant, should have been disclosed. CPLR 3101 (e) "enables a party to unconditionally obtain a copy of his or her own statement[,] creating an exception to the rule that material prepared for litigation is ordinarily not discoverable" ( Sands v News Am. Publ. , 161 AD2d 30, 40 [1st Dept 1990]).

Section 3101(e) permits a party to obtain copies of its own statements in another party's possession.

Fusco v. Mace Ave. Med., P.C. · filed 2022-10-20(e)

Defendants were entitled to copies of their emails, correspondence, and texts in plaintiff's possession because they were discoverable party statements (CPLR 3101[e]).

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of financial information relevant to assessing civil penalties and disgorgement.

People v. TikTok Inc. · filed 2026-03-06(a)

The Court determines that the financial information requested is relevant to Plaintiff’s application for damages and the Court’s assessment of both a civil penalty and disgorgement, and the amounts thereto.

Section 3101(a) requires a party seeking litigation funding documents to show they are material and necessary to a claim or defense.

Perdomo v. 361 E. Realty Assoc. LLC · filed 2026-02-17(a)

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying GF's motion to compel discovery of documents related to litigation funding, as GF has not shown why the funding documents are material and necessary to a defense of this action ( see CPLR 3101[a]; Worldview Entertainment Holdings, Inc. v Woodrow, 204 AD3d 629 [1st Dept 2022]).

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of litigation financing information material and necessary to a defense.

Cruz v. Muaadh · filed 2026-01-07(a)

Accordingly, in accordance with the First Department's decision in Lituma, defendants are entitled to the demanded materials as material and necessary to the defense of the action and the motion is granted.

Section 3101 permits discovery of an arresting officer’s report to the police department when its official status alone does not justify withholding it.

Scott v. County of Nassau · filed 1964-07-29

Is the official nature of the communication sufficient reason for denying to plaintiff the disclosure to which under the CPLR he would otherwise be entitled? ... The court concludes, therefore, that plaintiff is entitled to discovery of the report of the arresting officer to his command • ing officer, though not to any statement that may have been made to the District Attorney.

Section 3101(a)(4) permits disclosure based on special circumstances, but legislative privacy or secrecy can justify withholding access.

In re Minicozzi · filed 1966-09-21(a)(4)

To urge that the announced legislative policy nevertheless permits disclosure (CPLR 3101, subd. [a], par. [4]) is to simultaneously demonstrate the futility of that policy. Legislative privacy, or even secrecy, based upon sound considerations of public policy, is ample justification for nonaccess.

Section 3101 permits discovery of a self-employed personal-injury plaintiff’s income tax returns when the plaintiff claims lost earnings and has no business records to verify them.

Coleman v. Myers · filed 1968-01-22

CPLR 3101 requires disclosure of all material and necessary evidence. ... In the instant case, however, plaintiffs kept no books or records to confirm their allegations of loss of earnings. It would be wholly unrealistic and an unreasonable burden on defendant to require him to gather evidence of income by contacting all of plaintiffs’ customers. Without the income tax returns, the only evidence would be plaintiffs’ testimony.

Section 3101(a) covers a decedent’s hospital record, and subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) do not bar its disclosure.

Huttner v. State · filed 1969-05-22(a), (b), (c), (d)

Certainly, it is a document within the requirements of CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) and outside the prohibitions of CPLR 3101 (subds. [b], [c] and [d]).

Section 3101(a) permits disclosure of an insurance policy when its coverage is material and necessary to prosecuting the action.

Day v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Companies · filed 1969-12-15(a)

Insurance coverage by the respondent under the facts and circumstances in this proceeding are relevant and material and necessary to the prosecution of the action brought by the petitioners. ... Compare CPLR 3101 (subd. [a]) (“ There shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof”), with subdivision (b) of rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“the deponent may be examined regarding any matter * * * which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ”). ... The petition is granted to the extent that the respondent is directed to deliver to petitioner’s attorney herein and to the Monroe County Sheriff a true copy of policy No. 6558 087-B19-13A of automobile liability insurance issued to the defendant Eugene G-. Moody by the respondent herein within 20 days after service upon respondent’s attorneys of record of a copy of the order to be entered herein with notice of entry.

Section 3101 does not permit discovery of insurance coverage sought only to guide settlement when the coverage is immaterial to the action.

Sashin v. Santelli Construction Co. · filed 1972-03-03

To read CPLR 3101 as permitting disclosure of insurance coverage would be more a rewriting than a liberal interpretation of the statute.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of insurance policy limits after a statement of readiness has been filed.

Mosca v. Pensky · filed 1973-01-19(a)

To recapitulate, the court is holding that discovery of insurance policy limits may be had after the filing of the statement of readiness, and is within the intendment of subdivision (a) of CPLR 3101.

CPLR 3101 allows plaintiffs to examine a knowledgeable corporate officer and relevant records concerning vehicle ownership and a driver's employment.

Thomas v. Queens Transit Corp. · filed 1977-09-26

However, CPLR 3101 entitles plaintiff's to put respondent to its proof as to its ownership of the vehicle and employment of the driver on the date of the accident. Plaintiffs have the right to examine a knowledgeable officer of respondent and to examine its employment and vehicle records pertaining to the date in question.

Section 3101 does not permit inspection of a slander claimant’s psychiatric records when claims of embarrassment and distress do not place her mental condition in controversy.

Ideal Publishing Corp. v. Creative Features, Inc. · filed 1977-11-10

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 21, 1977, which denied motion of plaintiff-appellant Ideal Publishing Corp. and additional defendants-appellants Scott and Milas to inspect and copy the records of defendant Roseann C. Hirsch’s psychiatrist pursuant to CPLR 3101, 3102 and 3121, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. ... We do not agree that defendant placed her physical or mental condition in controversy by asserting the counterclaims herein or by her answers to questions from plaintiff’s counsel at her examination before trial, concerning psychiatric treatment she had received (cf. Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287).

Section 3101(d) permits disclosure of photographs that cannot be duplicated when withholding them would cause injustice and hardship.

Binke v. Goodyear & and Rubber Co. · filed 1976-12-20(d)

Since the photographs in issue can no longer be duplicated, a withholding of the same would also result in injustice and hardship; they are, therefore, subject to disclosure (see Wolken v Howell Co., 41 AD2d 545; Wasmuth v Hinds-Toomey Auto Corp., 39 AD2d 723; see, also, CPLR 3101, subd [d]).

Section 3101 allows discovery of material and necessary medical records from treating physicians when a plaintiff puts her physical condition in controversy, even if she does not plan to call those physicians at trial.

Greuling v. Breakey · filed 1977-02-15

Discovery is allowed of reports and records material and necessary for the presentation or defense of an action (CPLR 3101; Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403).

Section 3101 permits discovery of reports from physicians who treated the condition underlying a malpractice claim, even if the plaintiff will not call them as witnesses.

Sito v. Neumann · filed 1977-06-30

Since the discovery of medical reports of treating physicians relative to the physical condition for which recovery is sought is afforded under Moses v Woodbury (54 AD2d 961, supra) the court will treat defendant’s application as one made pursuant to CPLR 3101.

Subdivision (d) does not support disclosure of an inspection report based solely on an assertion in a brief that testing altered the inspected item when the record contains no such claim.

De Santis v. Independent Beetle Service, Inc. · filed 1977-10-17(d)

Order otherwise reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the branch of plaintiff’s motion which sought discovery of the report is denied, without prejudice to renewal. All that plaintiff in his brief contends is that the hammer was altered as a result of tests conducted by other parties to this action (see CPLR 3101, subd [d]). The record contains no such claim.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery and inspection of repairs made after an accident.

Baxter v. Orans · filed 1978-06-01(a)

Special Term erred in denying discovery and inspection of repairs made after the accident of September 21, 1974.

Section 3101(a) permits discovery of accidents involving an allegedly defective product component when used with other power units if no material difference between those units has been shown.

Johantgen v. Hobart Manufacturing Co. · filed 1978-07-13(a)

Inasmuch as there is an allegation that the meat chopper attachment itself is defective, we see no reason to preclude plaintiff from discovering accidents involving this attachment when it is used in conjunction with other power units, particularly since defendant has failed to show how these other power units differ in design or function from the one involved in plaintiff’s accident.

Section 3101 permits discovery of handwriting exemplars when a forgery defense makes them material and necessary to the plaintiff’s case.

Great American Insurance v. Giardino · filed 1979-07-13

Plaintiff is entitled to production of handwriting exemplars. The provisions of CPLR 3101 entitle plaintiff to a full disclosure of all evidence, material and necessary, in the prosecution of his cause of action.

Section 3101(a) requires disclosure of a patient's clinical records when they are material to a dispute over the reasonable cost of hospital care.

New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. Kings County Hospital v. Parker · filed 1980-01-08(a)

CPLR 3101 requires full disclosure of all evidence, material and necessary, in the prosecution or defense of an action. Clinical records contain information on all matters relating to admission, care and treatment of the patient. Clinical records are unquestionably material and relevant to an action which seeks recovery for the fair and reasonable cost for hospitalization and treatment.

Section 3101(a) permits a defendant to have a specialist of its choice examine disclosed X rays, with the scope and supervision of disclosure left to the trial court’s discretion.

Jackson v. Nelson · filed 1981-04-02(a)

CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) required “full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof’. ... Defendants are entitled to have a specialist of their choice examine the various X rays.

Section 3101 permits disclosure of relevant and material psychiatric hospital records when the patient has put her mental condition at issue and waived her physician-patient privilege.

Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hospital Medical Center · filed 1982-05-03

Here, since we find that the hospital records are relevant and material, they must be unconditionally disclosed.

The right to disclosure under CPLR 3101 cannot be adjudicated without sufficient identification of pertinent documents in the opposing party’s possession or control.

Torpey v. Alpine Brook Triangle Corp. · filed 1981-11-24

The right to discover and inspect such documents as may be properly required in this case pursuant to CPLR 3101 and 3120, cannot be intelligently adjudicated without sufficient identification of pertinent documents in the possession and control of the adverse party.

Section 3101 requires disclosure of medical records and reports material and necessary to the defense, including physicians’ private records, unless they are privileged or were prepared for litigation.

Pizzo v. Bunora · filed 1982-09-27

Medical records and reports pertaining to the alleged injuries of plaintiff John Pizzo, and their diagnosis and treatment, are obviously “material and necessary” to the defense (see CPLR 3101). They are therefore discoverable, unless exempt as material prepared for litigation or privileged. ... Drawing a distinction between the “private records” of said plaintiff’s physicians versus the physicians’ reports contained in official files is not meaningful in the context of discovery.

Section 3101 permits disclosure of medical records even when no physical or mental examination is conducted.

Przekop v. Lo Galbo · filed 1983-02-09

disclosure under the CPLR is somewhat broader than the more specific proscriptions contained in CPLR 3121, and under the liberal interpretation afforded CPLR article 31, medical records can be demanded even though a physical examination or mental examination is not being conducted.

Section 3101 requires disclosure of a treating physician’s records when a plaintiff puts physical condition in issue, even if the physician may not testify at trial.

Rodriguez v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. · filed 1984-04-24

Having placed the infant’s physical condition in issue plaintiff cannot limit the controversy to the records she wishes to disclose. ... Special Term’s denial of the motion, with a reservation that the records sought would be made available in the event the doctor involved testified at trial, is totally at variance with the letter and spirit of CPLR 3101.

CPLR 3101 permits discovery of a treating physician’s office records upon a proper showing when the plaintiff places his physical condition in issue.

Neglio v. Adler · filed 1984-05-17

Discoverability of such records, upon a proper showing, as has been made here, is consistent with the mandate of CPLR 3101.

When a party’s physical condition is at issue, CPLR 3101 ordinarily requires disclosure of a treating physician’s medical records as well as reports.

Hostler v. Tonawanda Super Duper, Inc. · filed 1984-09-21

Since our decision in Montag v Young Men’s Christian Assn. (supra), however, the Court of Appeals has made it clear that where, as here, a party’s physical condition is at issue, CPLR 3101 ordinarily requires disclosure of medical records as well as reports (Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Center, 60 NY2d 452).