On May 10, 2023, the Second Department issued a decision in Star Auto Sales of Queens, LLC v. Filardo, 2023 NY Slip Op. 02552, holding that the remedy for overbroad discovery demands is vacating the demands, not trimming them, explaining:
CPLR 3101(a) requires, in pertinent part, full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. A party, however, is not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolled, unfettered disclosure. Where discovery demands are overbroad, lack specificity, or seek irrelevant or confidential information, they are palpably improper and may be stricken. The burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and it is not for the courts to correct a palpably bad one. Thus, the appropriate remedy for an overbroad discovery demand is to vacate the entire demand rather than to prune it. Furthermore, the supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Here, many of the plaintiff’s discovery demands were palpably improper in that they were overbroad and burdensome, sought irrelevant or confidential information, or failed to specify with reasonable particularity what was demanded. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it, in effect, denied the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to compel the defendants to fully respond to its discovery demands, and vacated the plaintiff’s overbroad demands in their entirety.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).