| Spohn-Konen v Town of Brookhaven |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05382 [74 AD3d 1049] |
| June 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Patricia M. Spohn-Konen, Appellant, v Town ofBrookhaven, Respondent. |
—[*1] Tromello, McDonnell & Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (Kathleen M. Watson of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), dated October 6, 2009, which granted thedefendant's motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) denying further depositionsof its employees.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
While CPLR 3101 (a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material andnecessary in the prosecution . . . of an action" (see Allen v Crowell-CollierPubl. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]), "unlimited disclosure is not permitted" (Harris v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 48AD3d 631, 632 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Silcox v City of NewYork, 233 AD2d 494 [1996]). CPLR 3103 (a) provides that a court may issue a protectiveorder denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating the use of any disclosure device, in order toprevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice tothe other party.
To show that additional depositions are necessary, it must be demonstrated (1) that therepresentatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and(2) that there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possessinformation which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case (see Nazario v City of New York, 27AD3d 439 [2006]; Hayden v Cityof New York, 26 AD3d 262 [2006]; Saxe v City of New York, 250 AD2d 751,752 [1998]; Carter v New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 AD2d 512 [1996]; Zollner vCity of New York, 204 AD2d 626, 627 [1994]). Since the plaintiff failed to sustain herburden of demonstrating these two elements, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant'smotion for a protective order (seeSladowski-Casolaro v World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 AD3d 803, 803-804[2008]; Barone v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 AD2d 417, 417-418 [1999]; Saxe vCity of New York, 250 AD2d at 752). Mastro, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.