Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION NYCAL
SINAR SEEN, Individually and as Administrator
Hon. Manuel J.Mende2
of the Estate of MUNIR SEEN, Deceased,
Plaintiff, Index No. 190225/2018
- against -
84 LUMBER COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
IPA SYSTEMS, INC.,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
- against -
KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Memorandum of Law in Support of Non-Party Union Carbide Corporation's
Motion to Quash and/or for a Protective Order
Judith Yavitz
Sandra K. Steinman
Diana Smithens
Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP
116 East 27th Street, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10016
212.452.5300
Counsel for Non-Party Union Carbide
Corporation
1 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
Table of Contents
Preliminary Statement.......................................................................................................................................1
Statement of Relevant Facts.............................................................................................................................2
Argument............................................................................................................................................................3
IPA's Trial Subpoena is Contrary to the NYCAL CMO and Would Waste
the Court's Time and Resources..........................................................................................3
IPA's Trial Subpoena Is Facially Defective Because It Does Not State the
Circumstances or Reasons Underlying the Subpoena.......................................................7
1 IPA's Trial Subpoena Is Overly-Broad, Unduly Burdensome, an Improper
Attempt to Engage in Discovery, and a Fishing Expedition...........................................8
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................12
2 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
Table of Authorities
Cases
Ayubo v.Eastman Kodak Co.
158 A.D.2d 641 (2d Dep't 11
1990)..............................................................................................9,
10,
Barrett v.Barrett
281 A.D.2d 799 (3d Dep't 2001) 11
....................................................................................................
9,
Bour v.Bleecker LLC
104 A.D.3d 454 (1st Dep't 2013)...........................................................................................................8
Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32042(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Sept. 28, 2017)
(Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6
Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
No. 190252/2015, 2017 WL 4422587, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32100(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County,
Oct. 3, 2017) (Mende2, J.)..................................................................................................................
1, 5
Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32101(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017)
(Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6
Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32102(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017)
(Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6
Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32103(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017)
(Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6
Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32154(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 12, 2017)
(Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6
DeStafano v.MT Health Clubs
220 A.D.3d 331 (1st Dep't 1995)......................................................................................................
7, 8
Evans v.3M Co.
No. 190109/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 30903(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, May 2, 2017)
(Moulton, J.).......................................................................................................................................
9, 10
Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc.
No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32043(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Sept. 28, 2017)
(Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6
..
3 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc.
No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32155(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 12, 2017)
(Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6
Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc., et al.
No. 190343/2015 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (Mende2, J.).........................................
6, 7
In Re: New York City Asbestos Litig.
No. 782000/2017 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, June 20, 2017) (Moulton, J.)..........................................4
Kapon v.Kotch
23 N.Y.3d 32, 11 N.E.3d 709, 988 N.Y.S.2d 559 (2014).....................................................................7
Matter of Terry D.
81 N.Y.2d 1042 11
(1993)......................................................................................................................
9,
Mestel & Co. v. Smythe Masterson & Judd, Inc.
215 A.D.2d 329 (1st Dep't 1995)......................................................................................................
8, 9
Murray v.Hudson
43 A.D.3d 936, 937 (2d Dep't 2007)...................................................................................................11
Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. Town of Babylon
239 A.D.2d 568 (2d Dep't 1997) .........................................................................................................11
People v. Gissendanner
48 N.Y.2d 543 (1979)...............................................................................................................................8
Porter v. SPD Trucking
284 A.D.2d 181 (1st Dep't 2001)...........................................................................................................8
Reid v.Brown
308 A.D.2d 331 (1st Dep't 2003)...........................................................................................................8
Reuters Ltd. v.Dow Jones Telerate, Inc.
231 A.D.2d 337 (1st Dep't 1997) ...............................................................................................
8, 9, 10
Rodriguez v. Crescent Contracting Corp.
305 A.D.2d 215 (1st Dep't 2003)...........................................................................................................8
Schwartz v. A.O. Smith Prods., Inc.
No. 190199/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 23, 2017)
(Mende2, J.)......................................................................................................................................
1, 4, 5
...
4 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
Statutes
C RL 2 3 04P..........................................................................................................................................................1
CPLR 3101.....................................................................................................................................................
7, 8
C RL 3P103..........................................................................................................................................................1
Rules
New York City Asbestos Litigation Case Management Order, June 20, 2017............................1,
3, 5, 6
.
1V
5 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
Preliminary Statement
Non-party Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide") submits this memorandum of law
in support of itsmotion pursuant to CPLR 2304 and 3103 to quash the New York trial subpoena ad
testificandum served by Defendant IPA Systems, Inc. ("IPA") seeking testimony and documents from
Union Carbide's corporate representative at the February 4, 2020 trialof the asbestos-related personal
injury action brought by Plaintiff Sinar Seen, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Munir
Seen, deceased, which is pending in New York County, and/or for a protective order. The subpoena
should be quashed, and/or a protective order issued, on several independent grounds.
First, the subpoena is contrary to the New York City Asbestos Litigation ("NYCAL") Case
Management Order ("CMO") dated June 20, 2017. It isfor just this reason that NYCAL justices have
quashed several subpoenas ad testificandum identical to the one at issue here. In Schwartz v. A.O.
Smith Prods., Inc., No. 190199/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 23,
2017), Justice Manuel J.Mende2 quashed defendant Duro Dyne Corporation's trial subpoena seeking
testimony from settled non-party CertainTeed Corporation. Justice Mende2 held: "CertainTeed
argues, and rightfully so, that forcing itto produce a witness at the trial of this matter is contrary
2017."
to the [NYCAL CMO] dated June 20, Id. at *3-4 (emphasis added). "In essence following
the CMO obviates the need to subpoena witnesses from non-parties and settling defendants
culpability."
in order to establish their equitable share of Id. at *5 (emphasis added).
Moreover, Justice Mende2 further held that "[t]his Court is of the opinion that, as a settled
party, forcing [defendant] to produce a witness at the trial of this matter is contrary to the
policy of fostering and encouraging settlements and to the New York City Asbestos Litigation
(NYCAL) Case Management Order (CMO)". Carilli,2017 WL 4422587, at *4, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op.
32100(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 3, 2017) (Steinman Aff. Ex. 5).
Second, the subpoena is facially defective because it does not state the circumstances or
reasons underlying the subpoena.
Third, the subpoena is vague, overly-broad, unduly burdensome, an improper attempt to
engage in discovery, and a fishing expedition. The subpoena seeks testimony and documents on
6 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
numerous topics neither tailored to the facts of this case nor limited to specific time periods or
products at issue.
Accordingly, IPA's trialsubpoena should be quashed, and/or a protective order issued.
Statement of Relevant Facts
As enumerated in the 2020 Affirmation of Sandra K. Jeen is an asbestos-
January 23, Steinman,
related personal injury action with a trialdate of February 4, 2020 before this Court. Steinman Aff.
¶ 4. Although Union Carbide was at one time a defendant in the Jeen matter, Union Carbide settled
for consideration on March 26, 2019. Steinman Aff. ¶ 5. Union Carbide filed a formal Stipulation
of Discontinuance on August 16, 2019. Id.at ¶ 5, Steinman Aff. Ex. 1. Accordingly, Union Carbide
is not a party in the Jeen matter. Steinman Aff. ¶ 5.
On or about December 20, 2019, IPA served a trial subpoena ad testificandum,returnable
February 4, 2020, and at any recessed or adjourned date, upon Union Carbide. Steinman Aff. ¶ 6;
Steinman Aff. Ex. 2 (subpoena with accompanying letter). The subpoena seeks testimony from "the
individual designated by Union Carbide Corporation ('The Company') as its corporate
matter,"
representative/person most knowledgeable, for the trial in this without stating the
circumstances or reasons underlying the subpoena. Steinman Aff. Ex. 2.
IPA's subpoena seeks testimony on seven "specific subject areas". Jee Steinman Aff. Ex. 2.
Many of the subject areas are not limited to the relevant time period, i.e.,"[t]he Company's historical
asbestos" Company,"
knowledge of the hazards or potential hazards of "the corporate history of the
and "Company's membership in and/or affiliation with any trade associations or other entities that
generally."
disseminated information regarding asbestos or occupational health hazards Jee Steinman
Aff. Ex. 2. Other testimony sought is not limited to the relevant product or time frame, i.e.,
"[k]nowledge of the Company's use, sale and/or distribution of any asbestos-containing equipment
and or products manufactured, supplied, distributed, re-branded and/or sold by the Company or any
1980...."
of itspredecessor entities from 1920 through Jee Steinman Aff. Ex. 2. While two of the
"identified"
subject areas, No. 4 and No. 6, relateto products or equipment in Jeen, they do not specify
2
7 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
any particular products or equipment. Jee Steinman Aff Ex. 2. Even to the extent the subject areas
can be read to be limited to specific products or equipment, the scope remains sweeping, i.e.,"any
statements"
warnings/precautionary and "catalogs, order forms, pamphlets, brochures or any other
material"
advertising related to the products or equipment. Jee Steinman Aff Ex. 2. The final subject
action."
area is "[a]llother matters relevant to this Jee Steinman Aff Ex. 2.
In addition, the subpoena seeks vnh1minous documents related to unspecified products,
equipment, and without timeframes or overly broad timeframes. Jee Steinman Aff Ex. 2.
Argument
L IPA's 111al Subpoena is Camerary to the NYCAL CMO and Would Wasse the Courth
Thne and Remnneces.
IPA's trial subpoena is improper under the NYCAL CMO dated June 20, 2017 (Steinman Aff
Ex. 3). With regard to the use of nonparty interrogatory responses and depositions at trial,the CMO
states:
A. Use of Nonparty Interrogatories. Answers by nonparties
of NYCAL standard sets of interrogatories may be used at trial
to prove 1) that a product or products of the nonparty
contained asbestos, or that asbestos was used in conjunction
nonparties'
with the product or products, and/or 2) any failure
to warn by the nonparty concerning an asbestos-containing
product and/or the use of asbestos in association with a
product.. . . For purposes of this section, a non-party shall
include a settled party.
B. Use of Deposidens. depositions
Nonparty Nonparty may
be used where allowed by the CPLR.
NYCAL CMO, Section XIII (6/20/2017) (Steinman Aff Ex. 3).
Moreover, with regard to the use of interrogatory responses for Article 16 purposes at trial,
the decision by Justice Peter H. Moulton that accompanied the CMO states as follows:
defendants'
Defendants note that plaintiffs use answers to
interrogatories at trial. Therefore, defendants reason, these
interrogatory answers are sufficiently reliable to be used by other
defendants, at least for the limited purpose of demonstrating that a
3
8 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
nonparty sold a product that contained or used asbestos, and failed to
warn about the dangers of asbestos.
The Court agrees that this limited Article 16 relief is
warranted given the age of asbestos litigation and the difficulty
defendants face in proving that other nonparty entities should be
considered by the jury as potentia1causes of a plaintiff's disease.
Interrogatory answers concerning product identification are
reliable in that it is against the answering entity's interest to
admit that its product contained asbestos, or required that
asbestos be used to further the product's purpose. An admission
concerning a failure to warn is similarly against interest.
Defendants in NYCAL generally are required to answer the standard
form interrogatories contemplated by the CMO only once. The
interrogatory answers are then used in allNYCAL cases. NYCAL trial
judges have on occasion allowed the admission of nonparty
interrogatory answers for these limited purposes.
***
For these reasons, the Case Management Order signed on
today's date allows for the use of interrogatory answers as
described above.
In Re: New York City Asbestos Litig., No. 782000/2017, at *23 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, June 20, 2017)
(Steinman Aff. Ex. 4) (emphasis added).
IPA's subpoena to Union Carbide is contrary to the CMO, which explicitly provides measures
intended to allow defendants at trial to prove Article 16 shares through nonparty interrogatory
responses and depositions. It is for just this reason that NYCAL justices have quashed several
subpoenas ad testificandum identical to the one at issue which were also served on settled non-
here,
parties. Thus, in Schwartz v. A.O. Smith Prods., Inc., No. 190199/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U)
(Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 23, 2017) (Steinman Aff. Ex. 5), Justice Manuel J. Mende2 quashed
defendant Duro Dyne Corporation's ("Duro Dyne") trial subpoena seeking testimony from settled
non-party CertainTeed Corporation ("CertainTeed"). Justice Mende2 held: "CertainTeed argues, and
rightfully so, that forcing it to produce a witness at the trial of this matter is contrary to the
2017."
[NYCAL CMO] dated June 20, Id. at *3-4 (emphasis added). Justice Mende2 explained:
Justice Moulton's decision accompanying the CMO, and the
allow the use defendants in a NYCAL action of non-
CMO, clearly by
4
9 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
party and settled party interrogatories, and deposition of settling
defendants (under certain circumstances). . .. The use of non-party
and settling defendants'interrogatories... serves to streamline the trial
process, by allowing the defendants to prove the culpability of these
entities without the need of producing a witness for this purpose. In
essence following the CMO obviates the need to subpoena
witnesses from non-parties and settling defendants in order to
establish their equitable share of culpability.
Schwartz, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U), at *4-5 (emphasis added).
Thus, because "[t]he CMO, which governs NYCAL cases, provides the mechanism for the
defendant to meet itsArticle 16 burden through interrogatories, and at times through depositions,
witnesses,"
without the need of producing Justice Mende2 quashed the trialsubpoena, holding that
where previous defendant CertainTeed settled, "Duro Dyne may make use of the non-party
CertainTeed's interrogatories and deposition testimony at trial in accordance with the CMO.
Schwartz , 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U), at *5 (emphasis added); see NYCAL CMO Section XIII
(6/20/2017).
This Court remained steadfast in itsholding that that the CMO obviates the need to subpoena
witnesses from settled/non-parties for Article 16 purposes in Carilli v. AO. Smith Water Prods.,2017
WL 4422587, at *4, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32100(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (Mende2, J.)
Burnham'
and quashed defendant LLC's trialsubpoena seeking testimony from settled non-party
Peerless Industries Inc. on the same grounds. Moreover, Justice Mende2 further held that "[t]his
Court is of the opinion that, as a settled party, forcing [defendant] to produce a witness at the
trial of this matter is contrary to the policy of fostering and encouraging settlements and to
the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) Case Management Order (CMO)". Carilli,
2017 WL 4422587, at *4.
The Schwartz and Carilli decisions are consistent with numerous other decisions by Justice
Mende2 quashing trial subpoenas seeking testimony from settled former parties/non-parties, and
non-parties'
other non-parties on the ground that under the CMO, these interrogatory responses and
deposition testimony could be used for Article 16 purposes, and there was no need for livetestimony.
See, e.g.,Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc., No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32155(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y.
5
10 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
County, Oct. 12, 2017) (quashing defendant The Fairbanks Company's trialsubpoena to settled former
party Clyde Union, Inc.);Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op.
32154(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 12, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham LLC's and plaintiff's
trial subpoenas to settled former party ITT LLC); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No.
190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32103(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (quashing defendant
Burnham LLC's trial subpoena to settled former party Crane Co.); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods.
Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32102(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (quashing
Bros.'
defendant Jenldns trial subpoena to settled former party Peerless Industries Inc.); Carilli v. A.O.
Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32101(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct.
5, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham LLC's trialsubpoena to non-party NIBCO Inc.); Gallen v.
Aerco Int'l,Inc., No. 190343/2015 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham
LLC's trialsubpoena to settled former party JCB Inc.); Gallen v.Aerco Int'l,Inc., No. 190343/2015,
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32043(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Sept. 28, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham
LLC's trial subpoena to non-party Trane U.S. Inc.); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No.
190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32042(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Sept. 28, 2017) (quashing defendant
Burnham LLC's trial subpoena to non-party Trane U.S. Inc.) (collectively,Steinman Aff. Ex. 5).
This Court has also consistently adhered to itsholding in Carilli that in light of the fact that
there are other mechanisms in place under the CMO to afford the remaining defendant to meet its
Article 16 burden, trial subpoenas seeldng testimony from settled former parties/non-parties, and
other non-parties on the ground that forcing settled defendants/non-parties to produce witnesses at
trialis contrary to the public policy of fostering and encouraging settlements and should be quashed.
See, e.g.,Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc., No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32155(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y.
County, Oct. 12, 2017); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op.
32103(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No.
190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32102(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017); Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,
6
11 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
Inc.,No. 190343/2015 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (qnashing defendant Burnham LLC's tdal
subpoena to settled former party JCB Inc.) (collectively,Steinman Aff. Ex. 5).
Thus, as this Court has recognized and has firmly established, the use of non-party and settling
parties'
defendants/non interrogatories serves to streamlinc the trial process. This approach saves
time the m1mher of witnesses at while
trial, the defendant the to
by reducing affording opportunity
meet itsArticle 16 burden. Requiring Union Carbide to produce a trialwitness in the within matter
would be a waste of this Court's time and resources. This is particularly inefficient given that any
testiniony of a corporate witness would be based on the same discovery materials addressed in the
CMO.
Moreover, forcing Union Carbide, as a settlingparty, to produce a witness at trial
of thismatter
would be contrary to public policy of fostering and encouraging settlements and the CMO.
Accordingly, IPA's trialsubpoena should be qüâshed on the ground that itis contrary to the
NYCAL CMO and would waste the Court's time and resources, and/or a protective order should be
issued.
2. IPA% Thial Subpoena Is Defective Bec==a It Does Not State the
PacimRy
CircumstancesorReasonsUndedyingtheSubpoena.
CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disdesüre of allmatter material and necessary
in the prosecndon or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: . .. (4) any other
required."
person, upon notice stating the circumsances or reasons such disclosure is sought or Thus,
with respect to a subpoena seeking discovery from a nonparty, the Court of Appeals has held that
reasons'
"the subpoenaing party must first sufficiently state the 'circumstances or underlying the
it)."
subpoena (either on the face of the subpoena itselfor in a notice accompanying Kapon n Kotch,
23 N.Y.3d 32, at 34, 11 N.E.3d 709, 988 N.Y.S.2d 559 (2014). The court explained: "[S]ection
3101(a)(4)'s notice requirement . . . obligatesthe subpoenaing party to state, either on the face of the
subpoena or in a notice accompanying it,'the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or
required.'
The subpocnaing party must include that information in the notice in the firstinstance, lest
insufficiency."
itbe subject to a challcage for facial Id. at 39 (citations omitted). See also DeStafano n
7
12 of 17
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020
MT Health Clubs, 220 A.D.3d 331 (1st Dep't 1995) (upholding lower court's refusal to enforce a
subpoena as "the subpoenas duces tecum with notice of dep. . served on plaintiff's healthcare
providers ...were facially defective for failure to 'stat[e]the circumstances or reasons such discinmre
is sought or required', as required by CPLR 3101(a)(4)").
Here, IPA has failed to state the circumstances or reasons underlying the subpoena either on
the face of the subpoena or any accompanying notice. Thus, IPA's subpoena is facially defective and
should be qüâshed, and/or a protective order should be issued.
3. IPRs Iklal Subpoena Is Ovedy-Broad, Unrkm r hedemann••, an Improper Assempt to
Engage hn Discovery, and a Plahing Expedkion.
A subpoena that is overly-broad or unduly burdensome, or that is used for the improper
purpose of discovery or as a fishing expedition, is improper. See People n Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d
543, 551 (1979) ("In gcñcral, the subpoena duces tecum may not be used for the purpose of
diswvery or to ascertain the existence of evidence.") (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Bour
a Bleecker LLC, 104 A.D.3d 454, 455 (1st Dep't 2013) (holding subpoenas served on nonpartics were
properly quashed where subpoenas were "overbroad, and plaintiff was improperly using them to
secure discovery that she failed to obtain in pretrial disclosure") (emphasis added) (citations
omitted); Rodriguez a Crescent Contracting Corp., 305 A.D.2d 215, 215 (1st Dep't 2003) (holding "trial
subpoenas . .. were properly quashed as overbroad and improper discovery devices") (emphasis
added) (citations omitted); Porter n SPD Trucking, 284 A.D.2d 181, 181 (1st Dep't 2001) (precluding
defendants from using records obtained by subpoena where defendants "used an unlawfal, ex parte
subpoena in pursuit of pretrial discovery that was otherwise unavailable to them, at least absent
a court order") (emphasis added) (citations omitted), overruled on othergrounds, Reid n Brown, 308
A.D.2d 331 (1st Dep't 2003); Reuters Ltd. n Dow Jones Telerate, Inc.,231
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION NYCAL SINAR SEEN, Individually and as Administrator Hon. Manuel J.Mende2 of the Estate of MUNIR SEEN, Deceased, Plaintiff, Index No. 190225/2018 - against - 84 LUMBER COMPANY, et al., Defendants. IPA SYSTEMS, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, - against - KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. Memorandum of Law in Support of Non-Party Union Carbide Corporation's Motion to Quash and/or for a Protective Order Judith Yavitz Sandra K. Steinman Diana Smithens Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP 116 East 27th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10016 212.452.5300 Counsel for Non-Party Union Carbide Corporation 1 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 Table of Contents Preliminary Statement.......................................................................................................................................1 Statement of Relevant Facts.............................................................................................................................2 Argument............................................................................................................................................................3 IPA's Trial Subpoena is Contrary to the NYCAL CMO and Would Waste the Court's Time and Resources..........................................................................................3 IPA's Trial Subpoena Is Facially Defective Because It Does Not State the Circumstances or Reasons Underlying the Subpoena.......................................................7 1 IPA's Trial Subpoena Is Overly-Broad, Unduly Burdensome, an Improper Attempt to Engage in Discovery, and a Fishing Expedition...........................................8 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................12 2 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 Table of Authorities Cases Ayubo v.Eastman Kodak Co. 158 A.D.2d 641 (2d Dep't 11 1990)..............................................................................................9, 10, Barrett v.Barrett 281 A.D.2d 799 (3d Dep't 2001) 11 .................................................................................................... 9, Bour v.Bleecker LLC 104 A.D.3d 454 (1st Dep't 2013)...........................................................................................................8 Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32042(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Sept. 28, 2017) (Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6 Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. No. 190252/2015, 2017 WL 4422587, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32100(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 3, 2017) (Mende2, J.).................................................................................................................. 1, 5 Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32101(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6 Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32102(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6 Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32103(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6 Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32154(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 12, 2017) (Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6 DeStafano v.MT Health Clubs 220 A.D.3d 331 (1st Dep't 1995)...................................................................................................... 7, 8 Evans v.3M Co. No. 190109/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 30903(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, May 2, 2017) (Moulton, J.)....................................................................................................................................... 9, 10 Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc. No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32043(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Sept. 28, 2017) (Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6 .. 3 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc. No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32155(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 12, 2017) (Mende2, J.)...............................................................................................................................................6 Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc., et al. No. 190343/2015 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (Mende2, J.)......................................... 6, 7 In Re: New York City Asbestos Litig. No. 782000/2017 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, June 20, 2017) (Moulton, J.)..........................................4 Kapon v.Kotch 23 N.Y.3d 32, 11 N.E.3d 709, 988 N.Y.S.2d 559 (2014).....................................................................7 Matter of Terry D. 81 N.Y.2d 1042 11 (1993)...................................................................................................................... 9, Mestel & Co. v. Smythe Masterson & Judd, Inc. 215 A.D.2d 329 (1st Dep't 1995)...................................................................................................... 8, 9 Murray v.Hudson 43 A.D.3d 936, 937 (2d Dep't 2007)...................................................................................................11 Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. Town of Babylon 239 A.D.2d 568 (2d Dep't 1997) .........................................................................................................11 People v. Gissendanner 48 N.Y.2d 543 (1979)...............................................................................................................................8 Porter v. SPD Trucking 284 A.D.2d 181 (1st Dep't 2001)...........................................................................................................8 Reid v.Brown 308 A.D.2d 331 (1st Dep't 2003)...........................................................................................................8 Reuters Ltd. v.Dow Jones Telerate, Inc. 231 A.D.2d 337 (1st Dep't 1997) ............................................................................................... 8, 9, 10 Rodriguez v. Crescent Contracting Corp. 305 A.D.2d 215 (1st Dep't 2003)...........................................................................................................8 Schwartz v. A.O. Smith Prods., Inc. No. 190199/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 23, 2017) (Mende2, J.)...................................................................................................................................... 1, 4, 5 ... 4 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 Statutes C RL 2 3 04P..........................................................................................................................................................1 CPLR 3101..................................................................................................................................................... 7, 8 C RL 3P103..........................................................................................................................................................1 Rules New York City Asbestos Litigation Case Management Order, June 20, 2017............................1, 3, 5, 6 . 1V 5 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 Preliminary Statement Non-party Union Carbide Corporation ("Union Carbide") submits this memorandum of law in support of itsmotion pursuant to CPLR 2304 and 3103 to quash the New York trial subpoena ad testificandum served by Defendant IPA Systems, Inc. ("IPA") seeking testimony and documents from Union Carbide's corporate representative at the February 4, 2020 trialof the asbestos-related personal injury action brought by Plaintiff Sinar Seen, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Munir Seen, deceased, which is pending in New York County, and/or for a protective order. The subpoena should be quashed, and/or a protective order issued, on several independent grounds. First, the subpoena is contrary to the New York City Asbestos Litigation ("NYCAL") Case Management Order ("CMO") dated June 20, 2017. It isfor just this reason that NYCAL justices have quashed several subpoenas ad testificandum identical to the one at issue here. In Schwartz v. A.O. Smith Prods., Inc., No. 190199/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 23, 2017), Justice Manuel J.Mende2 quashed defendant Duro Dyne Corporation's trial subpoena seeking testimony from settled non-party CertainTeed Corporation. Justice Mende2 held: "CertainTeed argues, and rightfully so, that forcing itto produce a witness at the trial of this matter is contrary 2017." to the [NYCAL CMO] dated June 20, Id. at *3-4 (emphasis added). "In essence following the CMO obviates the need to subpoena witnesses from non-parties and settling defendants culpability." in order to establish their equitable share of Id. at *5 (emphasis added). Moreover, Justice Mende2 further held that "[t]his Court is of the opinion that, as a settled party, forcing [defendant] to produce a witness at the trial of this matter is contrary to the policy of fostering and encouraging settlements and to the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) Case Management Order (CMO)". Carilli,2017 WL 4422587, at *4, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32100(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 3, 2017) (Steinman Aff. Ex. 5). Second, the subpoena is facially defective because it does not state the circumstances or reasons underlying the subpoena. Third, the subpoena is vague, overly-broad, unduly burdensome, an improper attempt to engage in discovery, and a fishing expedition. The subpoena seeks testimony and documents on 6 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 numerous topics neither tailored to the facts of this case nor limited to specific time periods or products at issue. Accordingly, IPA's trialsubpoena should be quashed, and/or a protective order issued. Statement of Relevant Facts As enumerated in the 2020 Affirmation of Sandra K. Jeen is an asbestos- January 23, Steinman, related personal injury action with a trialdate of February 4, 2020 before this Court. Steinman Aff. ¶ 4. Although Union Carbide was at one time a defendant in the Jeen matter, Union Carbide settled for consideration on March 26, 2019. Steinman Aff. ¶ 5. Union Carbide filed a formal Stipulation of Discontinuance on August 16, 2019. Id.at ¶ 5, Steinman Aff. Ex. 1. Accordingly, Union Carbide is not a party in the Jeen matter. Steinman Aff. ¶ 5. On or about December 20, 2019, IPA served a trial subpoena ad testificandum,returnable February 4, 2020, and at any recessed or adjourned date, upon Union Carbide. Steinman Aff. ¶ 6; Steinman Aff. Ex. 2 (subpoena with accompanying letter). The subpoena seeks testimony from "the individual designated by Union Carbide Corporation ('The Company') as its corporate matter," representative/person most knowledgeable, for the trial in this without stating the circumstances or reasons underlying the subpoena. Steinman Aff. Ex. 2. IPA's subpoena seeks testimony on seven "specific subject areas". Jee Steinman Aff. Ex. 2. Many of the subject areas are not limited to the relevant time period, i.e.,"[t]he Company's historical asbestos" Company," knowledge of the hazards or potential hazards of "the corporate history of the and "Company's membership in and/or affiliation with any trade associations or other entities that generally." disseminated information regarding asbestos or occupational health hazards Jee Steinman Aff. Ex. 2. Other testimony sought is not limited to the relevant product or time frame, i.e., "[k]nowledge of the Company's use, sale and/or distribution of any asbestos-containing equipment and or products manufactured, supplied, distributed, re-branded and/or sold by the Company or any 1980...." of itspredecessor entities from 1920 through Jee Steinman Aff. Ex. 2. While two of the "identified" subject areas, No. 4 and No. 6, relateto products or equipment in Jeen, they do not specify 2 7 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 any particular products or equipment. Jee Steinman Aff Ex. 2. Even to the extent the subject areas can be read to be limited to specific products or equipment, the scope remains sweeping, i.e.,"any statements" warnings/precautionary and "catalogs, order forms, pamphlets, brochures or any other material" advertising related to the products or equipment. Jee Steinman Aff Ex. 2. The final subject action." area is "[a]llother matters relevant to this Jee Steinman Aff Ex. 2. In addition, the subpoena seeks vnh1minous documents related to unspecified products, equipment, and without timeframes or overly broad timeframes. Jee Steinman Aff Ex. 2. Argument L IPA's 111al Subpoena is Camerary to the NYCAL CMO and Would Wasse the Courth Thne and Remnneces. IPA's trial subpoena is improper under the NYCAL CMO dated June 20, 2017 (Steinman Aff Ex. 3). With regard to the use of nonparty interrogatory responses and depositions at trial,the CMO states: A. Use of Nonparty Interrogatories. Answers by nonparties of NYCAL standard sets of interrogatories may be used at trial to prove 1) that a product or products of the nonparty contained asbestos, or that asbestos was used in conjunction nonparties' with the product or products, and/or 2) any failure to warn by the nonparty concerning an asbestos-containing product and/or the use of asbestos in association with a product.. . . For purposes of this section, a non-party shall include a settled party. B. Use of Deposidens. depositions Nonparty Nonparty may be used where allowed by the CPLR. NYCAL CMO, Section XIII (6/20/2017) (Steinman Aff Ex. 3). Moreover, with regard to the use of interrogatory responses for Article 16 purposes at trial, the decision by Justice Peter H. Moulton that accompanied the CMO states as follows: defendants' Defendants note that plaintiffs use answers to interrogatories at trial. Therefore, defendants reason, these interrogatory answers are sufficiently reliable to be used by other defendants, at least for the limited purpose of demonstrating that a 3 8 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 nonparty sold a product that contained or used asbestos, and failed to warn about the dangers of asbestos. The Court agrees that this limited Article 16 relief is warranted given the age of asbestos litigation and the difficulty defendants face in proving that other nonparty entities should be considered by the jury as potentia1causes of a plaintiff's disease. Interrogatory answers concerning product identification are reliable in that it is against the answering entity's interest to admit that its product contained asbestos, or required that asbestos be used to further the product's purpose. An admission concerning a failure to warn is similarly against interest. Defendants in NYCAL generally are required to answer the standard form interrogatories contemplated by the CMO only once. The interrogatory answers are then used in allNYCAL cases. NYCAL trial judges have on occasion allowed the admission of nonparty interrogatory answers for these limited purposes. *** For these reasons, the Case Management Order signed on today's date allows for the use of interrogatory answers as described above. In Re: New York City Asbestos Litig., No. 782000/2017, at *23 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, June 20, 2017) (Steinman Aff. Ex. 4) (emphasis added). IPA's subpoena to Union Carbide is contrary to the CMO, which explicitly provides measures intended to allow defendants at trial to prove Article 16 shares through nonparty interrogatory responses and depositions. It is for just this reason that NYCAL justices have quashed several subpoenas ad testificandum identical to the one at issue which were also served on settled non- here, parties. Thus, in Schwartz v. A.O. Smith Prods., Inc., No. 190199/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 23, 2017) (Steinman Aff. Ex. 5), Justice Manuel J. Mende2 quashed defendant Duro Dyne Corporation's ("Duro Dyne") trial subpoena seeking testimony from settled non-party CertainTeed Corporation ("CertainTeed"). Justice Mende2 held: "CertainTeed argues, and rightfully so, that forcing it to produce a witness at the trial of this matter is contrary to the 2017." [NYCAL CMO] dated June 20, Id. at *3-4 (emphasis added). Justice Mende2 explained: Justice Moulton's decision accompanying the CMO, and the allow the use defendants in a NYCAL action of non- CMO, clearly by 4 9 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 party and settled party interrogatories, and deposition of settling defendants (under certain circumstances). . .. The use of non-party and settling defendants'interrogatories... serves to streamline the trial process, by allowing the defendants to prove the culpability of these entities without the need of producing a witness for this purpose. In essence following the CMO obviates the need to subpoena witnesses from non-parties and settling defendants in order to establish their equitable share of culpability. Schwartz, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U), at *4-5 (emphasis added). Thus, because "[t]he CMO, which governs NYCAL cases, provides the mechanism for the defendant to meet itsArticle 16 burden through interrogatories, and at times through depositions, witnesses," without the need of producing Justice Mende2 quashed the trialsubpoena, holding that where previous defendant CertainTeed settled, "Duro Dyne may make use of the non-party CertainTeed's interrogatories and deposition testimony at trial in accordance with the CMO. Schwartz , 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32244(U), at *5 (emphasis added); see NYCAL CMO Section XIII (6/20/2017). This Court remained steadfast in itsholding that that the CMO obviates the need to subpoena witnesses from settled/non-parties for Article 16 purposes in Carilli v. AO. Smith Water Prods.,2017 WL 4422587, at *4, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32100(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (Mende2, J.) Burnham' and quashed defendant LLC's trialsubpoena seeking testimony from settled non-party Peerless Industries Inc. on the same grounds. Moreover, Justice Mende2 further held that "[t]his Court is of the opinion that, as a settled party, forcing [defendant] to produce a witness at the trial of this matter is contrary to the policy of fostering and encouraging settlements and to the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) Case Management Order (CMO)". Carilli, 2017 WL 4422587, at *4. The Schwartz and Carilli decisions are consistent with numerous other decisions by Justice Mende2 quashing trial subpoenas seeking testimony from settled former parties/non-parties, and non-parties' other non-parties on the ground that under the CMO, these interrogatory responses and deposition testimony could be used for Article 16 purposes, and there was no need for livetestimony. See, e.g.,Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc., No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32155(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. 5 10 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 County, Oct. 12, 2017) (quashing defendant The Fairbanks Company's trialsubpoena to settled former party Clyde Union, Inc.);Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32154(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 12, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham LLC's and plaintiff's trial subpoenas to settled former party ITT LLC); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32103(U) (Sup. Ct.,N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham LLC's trial subpoena to settled former party Crane Co.); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32102(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (quashing Bros.' defendant Jenldns trial subpoena to settled former party Peerless Industries Inc.); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32101(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham LLC's trialsubpoena to non-party NIBCO Inc.); Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc., No. 190343/2015 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham LLC's trialsubpoena to settled former party JCB Inc.); Gallen v.Aerco Int'l,Inc., No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32043(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Sept. 28, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham LLC's trial subpoena to non-party Trane U.S. Inc.); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32042(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Sept. 28, 2017) (quashing defendant Burnham LLC's trial subpoena to non-party Trane U.S. Inc.) (collectively,Steinman Aff. Ex. 5). This Court has also consistently adhered to itsholding in Carilli that in light of the fact that there are other mechanisms in place under the CMO to afford the remaining defendant to meet its Article 16 burden, trial subpoenas seeldng testimony from settled former parties/non-parties, and other non-parties on the ground that forcing settled defendants/non-parties to produce witnesses at trialis contrary to the public policy of fostering and encouraging settlements and should be quashed. See, e.g.,Gallen v. Aerco Int'l,Inc., No. 190343/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32155(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 12, 2017); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32103(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017); Carilli v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co., No. 190252/2015, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32102(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017); Gallen v. Aerco Int'l, 6 11 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 Inc.,No. 190343/2015 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, Oct. 5, 2017) (qnashing defendant Burnham LLC's tdal subpoena to settled former party JCB Inc.) (collectively,Steinman Aff. Ex. 5). Thus, as this Court has recognized and has firmly established, the use of non-party and settling parties' defendants/non interrogatories serves to streamlinc the trial process. This approach saves time the m1mher of witnesses at while trial, the defendant the to by reducing affording opportunity meet itsArticle 16 burden. Requiring Union Carbide to produce a trialwitness in the within matter would be a waste of this Court's time and resources. This is particularly inefficient given that any testiniony of a corporate witness would be based on the same discovery materials addressed in the CMO. Moreover, forcing Union Carbide, as a settlingparty, to produce a witness at trial of thismatter would be contrary to public policy of fostering and encouraging settlements and the CMO. Accordingly, IPA's trialsubpoena should be qüâshed on the ground that itis contrary to the NYCAL CMO and would waste the Court's time and resources, and/or a protective order should be issued. 2. IPA% Thial Subpoena Is Defective Bec==a It Does Not State the PacimRy CircumstancesorReasonsUndedyingtheSubpoena. CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disdesüre of allmatter material and necessary in the prosecndon or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by: . .. (4) any other required." person, upon notice stating the circumsances or reasons such disclosure is sought or Thus, with respect to a subpoena seeking discovery from a nonparty, the Court of Appeals has held that reasons' "the subpoenaing party must first sufficiently state the 'circumstances or underlying the it)." subpoena (either on the face of the subpoena itselfor in a notice accompanying Kapon n Kotch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, at 34, 11 N.E.3d 709, 988 N.Y.S.2d 559 (2014). The court explained: "[S]ection 3101(a)(4)'s notice requirement . . . obligatesthe subpoenaing party to state, either on the face of the subpoena or in a notice accompanying it,'the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required.' The subpocnaing party must include that information in the notice in the firstinstance, lest insufficiency." itbe subject to a challcage for facial Id. at 39 (citations omitted). See also DeStafano n 7 12 of 17 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/23/2020 12:46 PM INDEX NO. 190225/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 397 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/23/2020 MT Health Clubs, 220 A.D.3d 331 (1st Dep't 1995) (upholding lower court's refusal to enforce a subpoena as "the subpoenas duces tecum with notice of dep. . served on plaintiff's healthcare providers ...were facially defective for failure to 'stat[e]the circumstances or reasons such discinmre is sought or required', as required by CPLR 3101(a)(4)"). Here, IPA has failed to state the circumstances or reasons underlying the subpoena either on the face of the subpoena or any accompanying notice. Thus, IPA's subpoena is facially defective and should be qüâshed, and/or a protective order should be issued. 3. IPRs Iklal Subpoena Is Ovedy-Broad, Unrkm r hedemann••, an Improper Assempt to Engage hn Discovery, and a Plahing Expedkion. A subpoena that is overly-broad or unduly burdensome, or that is used for the improper purpose of discovery or as a fishing expedition, is improper. See People n Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 551 (1979) ("In gcñcral, the subpoena duces tecum may not be used for the purpose of diswvery or to ascertain the existence of evidence.") (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Bour a Bleecker LLC, 104 A.D.3d 454, 455 (1st Dep't 2013) (holding subpoenas served on nonpartics were properly quashed where subpoenas were "overbroad, and plaintiff was improperly using them to secure discovery that she failed to obtain in pretrial disclosure") (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Rodriguez a Crescent Contracting Corp., 305 A.D.2d 215, 215 (1st Dep't 2003) (holding "trial subpoenas . .. were properly quashed as overbroad and improper discovery devices") (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Porter n SPD Trucking, 284 A.D.2d 181, 181 (1st Dep't 2001) (precluding defendants from using records obtained by subpoena where defendants "used an unlawfal, ex parte subpoena in pursuit of pretrial discovery that was otherwise unavailable to them, at least absent a court order") (emphasis added) (citations omitted), overruled on othergrounds, Reid n Brown, 308 A.D.2d 331 (1st Dep't 2003); Reuters Ltd. n Dow Jones Telerate, Inc.,231