| Hunt v Odd Job Trading |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07662 [44 AD3d 714] |
| October 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Kimberly Hunt et al., Respondents, v Odd Job Trading,Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. KMS, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Defendants,and American Household, Inc., Defendant and Third-PartyDefendant-Appellant. |
—[*1] Spiegel, Brown, Fichera & Cote, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Donald D. Brown, Jr., of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant and third-partydefendant Sunbeam Products, Inc., sued herein as American Household, Inc., appeals (1), aslimited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated January 29, 2007, as, upon converting that branch of theplaintiffs' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike its answer into one pursuant toCPLR 3124 to compel it to comply with certain demands for disclosure, granted that branch ofthe plaintiffs' motion and denied its cross motion for a protective order with respect to thedemands for disclosure by the plaintiff and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an orderof the same court dated March 28, 2007, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leaveto renew its prior cross motion for a protective order.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.[*2]
The instant action arises from an incident wherein theplaintiff Kimberly M. Hunt was severely burned on the right side of her face while she was usinga heating pad produced and distributed by the defendant and third-party defendant SunbeamProducts, Inc., sued herein as American Household, Inc. (hereinafter Sunbeam). The plaintiffsalleged that the heating pad was defectively designed and manufactured. During the course ofdiscovery, the plaintiffs served a notice to produce upon Sunbeam on or about May 17, 2006,seeking, inter alia, documents and information pertaining to heating pads manufactured bySunbeam. Sunbeam refused to comply with the notice to produce, claiming that the demandedinformation constituted trade secrets. However, Sunbeam did not seek a protective order from thecourt until it cross-moved for such relief on or about November 22, 2006, in response to theplaintiff's motion, inter alia, to strike its answer.
Sunbeam's failure to timely challenge the notice to produce "forecloses inquiry into thepropriety of the information sought except with regard to material that is privileged pursuant toCPLR 3101, or requests that are palpably improper" (Garcia v Jomber Realty, 264 AD2d809, 810 [1999], citing Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721 [1995]). Here,Sunbeam failed to make even a minimal showing that the demanded information contained tradesecrets (see Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 NY2d 395, 407 [1993]; Deas v Carson Prods.Co., 172 AD2d 795, 796 [1991]; Curtis v Complete Foam Insulation Corp., 116AD2d 907, 908-909 [1986]). Since the information and documents sought by the plaintiffs intheir notice to produce were neither privileged nor palpably improper, the Supreme Courtproperly granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to compel Sunbeam to complywith the notice to produce and properly denied Sunbeam's cross motion for a protective order.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Sunbeam's subsequent motion which wasfor leave to renew its prior cross motion for a protective order, as Sunbeam failed to set forth a"reasonable justification" for its failure to submit the alleged "new facts" earlier. Moreover, therewas nothing in the alleged "new facts" that would have warranted a change in the court's priordetermination (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Yarde v New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 352 [2004]; Ricciov Deperalta, 274 AD2d 384 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Skelos, Lifson and McCarthy,JJ., concur.