In a September 27, 2011 decision by Justice Warshawsky, the court granted the non-party’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum served on it by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought discovery of non-privileged information from The Weinstein Group, P.C., a law firm that had previously represented defendant Aronson in unrelated matters. Specifically, plaintiffs sought documents from litigations, which amounted to six identified cases, in which the Weinstein Group “appeared as counsel for Aronson or the Aaronson Companies, or for which. . . the [Weinstein Group] otherwise ha[d] knowledge.” The court found that although compliance with the subpoena “may involve significant time and effort,” as it would require review of all the case files for privilege, this did not make the demand overly broad or unduly burdensome. The court, however, followed Second Department precedent and granted the motion to quash the subpoena because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the materials sought by the subpoena were not available through sources other than the Weinstein Group. The court explained that the subpoena excluded privileged materials, leaving “very little besides the pleadings in the action, which are filed in the Count Clerk’s office in each County in which the proceedings were conducted.” The court noted that it would allow the plaintiffs to re-file the subpoena in the future if they could show that the requested documents were unavailable through other means.
Guss v. Aronson, Sup Ct, Nassau County, September 27, 2011, Warshawsky, J, Index No. 015752/2009.