Skip to main content

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.)

In a recent decision, a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories.

You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how you can respond. However, in that case, the discovery demands were hanging out there, unanswered, for two years! Plus, there were multiple court orders, ordering the plaintiff to respond, and even a stipulation (a formal, written agreement, often "so ordered" by a judge) that the plaintiff would respond within a certain time period.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff still failed to respond; their case was thrown out; and they were ordered to pay the defendants' attorney fees of almost $18,000 for frivolous conduct.

The plaintiff moved to vacate (reverse/undo) the judgment dismissing the case, as well as the $18,000 in attorney fees. But the appeals court said the plaintiff (1) failed to provide a good reason why they had not responded to the discovery demands, despite all the opportunities to do so and (2) failed to show they had a meritorious (i.e. legitimate) case.

Now, as the plaintiff: (1) you have no lawsuit (if the defendants did commit malpractice and breach of contract, there's nothing you can do about it); (2) you (probably) wracked up costs and attorney fees in the case before the lower court; (3) you had to pay costs and attorney fees for an appeal which you've lost; and (4) you have to pay the defendants $18,000 for their attorney fees! Ouch! All of this would've been avoided had the plaintiff just responded to the discovery demands.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Fraud: Dog "Rescue" Operation Shut Down and Ordered to Pay Restitution

News 12 recently had a story  about a Calverton dog "rescue" operation that was shut down and ordered to repay $24,000 in restitution for "selling" sick dogs. This was a type of fraud on consumers. The allegations  were that the two women who operated Precious Pups Rescue "pulled"/obtained dogs that had health issues from in-state and out-of-state shelters, then sold the dogs to consumers by way of "adoption fees" or "donations" of $200 to $600 per dog. The owners of Precious Pups Rescue told consumers that the dogs were healthy  and had been checked out by a vet when that was not true. The new owners were then faced with thousands of dollars in vet bills: Zambito and Torrillo-Hooghkirk sold consumers dogs that they claimed were healthy, vaccinated, spayed or neutered, and evaluated by a veterinarian, when in fact, they were not. In fact, the dogs had visible signs of illness, such as coughing, scratching, matting and sores. After...
Post a Comment
Read more