The attorney-client privilege is intended to protect communications between an attorney and his/her client. The Supreme Court stated that the privilege exists to “encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.” See Upjohn Co. v. United States,
Too Little Too Late: An Example of the Failure of CPLR 306(b)’s Safety Net
A commercial division litigator knows the severity of missing a statutory deadline. We discuss the implications of missing statutory deadlines here. CPLR 306(b) is unique in that it provides a statutory deadline for service of process, yet also provides a bit of a safety net for practitioners. However, in his recent decision in Plank,
Check the Rules Part IX: More Procedural Particularities of Practicing in the Commercial Division
As readers of this blog have come to appreciate, we here at New York Commercial D
ivision Practice tend to report on — among other things Commercial Division — the procedural particularities of litigating commercial matters before the various judges that have been assigned to the Commercial Division over the years. Such particularities may arise
Google Doesn’t “Do the Right Thing” When It Comes To Attorneys’ Eyes Only
As litigators in the Commercial Division, everyone knows that discovery can be particularly burdensome and time consuming. This is especially true when you have clients that are very protective of their information. The Commercial Division already has anticipated this by offering attorneys a model confidentiality agreement, which in some cases can be further negotiated
Check the Rules Part VIII: More Updated Part Rules in the Manhattan Commercial Division
Over the past year or so, we have made a point of highlighting in the “Check the Rules” series on this blog periodic updates to the individual practice rules of certain Commercial Division Justices, including Justice Eileen Bransten in New York County (twice, in fact), Justices Marguerite A. Grays and Leonard Livote in
Not All “Repeated Discovery Failures” Lead to the Striking of a Pleading
So you entered into a Preliminary Conference and a Compliance Conference Order with your adversary whereby the parties have to exchange discovery by dates certain. The purpose of these orders is to save parties a significant amount of time and money and to move along litigation. However, when a party repeatedly fails to comply with
Golf, the Commercial Division, and Expert Disclosure: No Sandbaggers Allowed!
“The expert discovery rules are promulgated so no party will be ‘sandbagged’ or surprised by another expert’s opinion” – Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Eileen Bransten
Several weeks ago, we reviewed some of the newer Commercial Division Rules and reported on a couple of recent decisions from Justice Shirley Werner Korneich of the Manhattan Commercial
Has Rule 11-c Made Nonparties’ Yoke Easy and Burden Light When It Comes to e-Discovery?
As we have come to expect, the Commercial Division Advisory Council periodically makes recommendations to amend and/or supplement the Rules of the Commercial Division, many of which are eventually adopted following a solicitation process for public comment by the Office of Court Administration.
In 2015, as a host of new Commercial Division rules