SNI/SI Networks LLC v. Directv, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

SNI/SI Networks LLC v. Directv, LLC

132 A.D.3d 616, 18 N.Y.S.3d 342

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 29, 2015

Docket652471/14 16006N 16005

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 616 (SNI/SI Networks LLC v. Directv, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

SNI/SI Networks LLC v. Directv, LLC, 132 A.D.3d 616, 18 N.Y.S.3d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered April 29, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a protective order under CPLR 3103, and directed plaintiff to produce the agreements it has with its other clients, subject to a confidentiality agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered May 27, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, permits defendant’s in-house counsel to review the aforesaid agreements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*617 The agreements that plaintiff has with its other distributors are “material and necessary” to defendant’s defense of antecedent breach (see CPLR 3101 [a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 407 [1968]; Twenty Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v Hunter Ambulance, 226 AD2d 175 [1st Dept 1996]). Defendant demonstrated a factual basis for its defense and that the “ ‘discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the [defense]’ ” (see Abrams v Pecile, 83 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2011]).

As to plaintiff’s request to designate the sought information for “outside counsel eyes only,” the parties are not business competitors (see Matter of Bernstein v On-Line Software Intl., 232 AD2d 336, 337 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 810 [1997]), and plaintiff’s claim that permitting an in-house counsel of defendant to view the information “would visit needless competitive harm on [plaintiff]” is conclusory. To the extent plaintiff is concerned about exposing competitive confidential information belonging to its other distributors, who may be defendant’s competitors, this concern is alleviated by the confidentiality order (see Twenty Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp., 226 AD2d at 176).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered April 29, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a protective order under CPLR 3103, and directed plaintiff to produce the agreements it has with its other clients, subject to a confidentiality agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered May 27, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, permits defendant’s in-house counsel to review the aforesaid agreements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*617 The agreements that plaintiff has with its other distributors are “material and necessary” to defendant’s defense of antecedent breach (see CPLR 3101 [a]; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 407 [1968]; Twenty Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v Hunter Ambulance, 226 AD2d 175 [1st Dept 1996]). Defendant demonstrated a factual basis for its defense and that the “ ‘discovery sought will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the [defense]’ ” (see Abrams v Pecile, 83 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2011]).

As to plaintiff’s request to designate the sought information for “outside counsel eyes only,” the parties are not business competitors (see Matter of Bernstein v On-Line Software Intl., 232 AD2d 336, 337 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 810 [1997]), and plaintiff’s claim that permitting an in-house counsel of defendant to view the information “would visit needless competitive harm on [plaintiff]” is conclusory. To the extent plaintiff is concerned about exposing competitive confidential information belonging to its other distributors, who may be defendant’s competitors, this concern is alleviated by the confidentiality order (see Twenty Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp., 226 AD2d at 176).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 616, 18 N.Y.S.3d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snisi-networks-llc-v-directv-llc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack