Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · Torts
TortsDiscoveryFurther Examinations Before TrialTrial Calendardiscoverydepositionsfurther examinations before trialunusual and unanticipated conditions
Facts
Plaintiffs brought an action seeking damages for personal injuries, including claims involving psychic injuries and issues relating to the zone of danger. Defendants sought further depositions of the plaintiffs and also sought to keep the case off the Trial Calendar. The record showed that substantial discovery had already occurred, including psychiatric examinations of plaintiffs in 1978. Defendants argued they still lacked information necessary to defend the claims.
Issue
Whether defendants were entitled to further examinations before trial and removal of the case from the Trial Calendar despite prior discovery. Specifically, the question was whether defendants showed unusual and unanticipated conditions justifying additional depositions.
Rule
A party seeking further examinations before trial after prior discovery must show that unusual and unanticipated conditions have developed. Where prior discovery has already afforded a full and fair opportunity to obtain information relevant to the claims and defenses, denial of additional discovery and restoration of the case to the Trial Calendar is within the court's discretion.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a personal injury action pending in Brooklyn, Maya Ortiz alleges physical injuries and anxiety after a warehouse accident. Ridgeway Transit Services already deposed Maya and obtained an independent psychiatric examination two years ago. On the eve of trial, Ridgeway moves to depose Maya again, arguing only that it wants a clearer picture of her emotional distress claim.
How should the court rule on Ridgeway's motion for a further examination before trial?
Explanation. The motion should be denied. Under the majority rule, once substantial discovery has already occurred, the movant must show unusual and unanticipated conditions have developed to justify further examinations before trial. A generalized assertion that the defendant wants a clearer understanding of emotional distress damages is insufficient, especially where the defendant already had a full and fair opportunity to obtain information, including a prior psychiatric examination. (Derived from Bovsun v. Sanperi (n.d.).)