On August 8, 2025, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Slice Wireless Servs., LLC v. Yakubov, 2025 NY Slip Op. 51257(U), denying a discovery motion for failure to comply with the Commercial Division discovery dispute rules, explaining:
Trial courts have broad power to supervise disclosure. Since its inception, the Commercial Division has implemented special rules, procedures and forms especially designed to address the unique problems of commercial practice. The Commercial Division Rules are to be followed in all matters assigned to the Commercial Division Parts and may not be disregarded.
Regarding discovery disputes, Rule 14 provides guidance. The rule provides that:
Discovery disputes are preferred to be resolved through court conference as opposed to motion practice and requires that consult with one another in a good faith effort to resolve all disputes about disclosure. If counsel are unable to resolve any disclosure dispute in this fashion, counsel for the moving party shall submit a letter to the court not exceeding three single-spaced pages outlining the nature of the dispute and requesting a telephone conference. Such a letter must include a representation that the party has conferred with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the letter or shall indicate good cause why no such consultation occurred. Not later than four business days after receiving such a letter, any affected opposing party or non-party shall submit a responsive letter not exceeding three single-spaced pages. After the submission of letters, the court will schedule a telephone or in-court conference with counsel The failure of counsel to comply with this rule may result in a motion being held in abeyance until the court has an opportunity to conference the matter.
During the January 31, 2025 status conference, the court addressed the parties’ concerns regarding the sufficiency of post deposition discovery, and specifically instructed the parties to make Commercial Division Rule 14 and 24 submissions. The order made clear that submissions requesting leave to file any anticipated motion were required.
Here, plaintiff did not comply with the clear and direct order to adhere to either Part 43 rules or Commercial Division rules, but rather filed its motion to compel in contravention of this court’s explicit directives. If the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity.
The Legislature, recognizing the need for courts to be able to command compliance with their disclosure directives, has specifically provided that a court may make such orders as are just, including dismissal of an action under CPLR 3126 (id.). Accordingly, it is this court’s view that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery should be denied. Plaintiff failed to comply with New York County Commercial Division Rule 14 (22 NYRR 202.70) and section 6(h) of the Part 43 rules, and thereby deprived this court of the ability to supervise disclosure in an orderly manner.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).