Yatter v. William Morris Agency, Inc.

273 A.D.2d 83, 710 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6586
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Yatter v. William Morris Agency, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 256 A.D.2d 260

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered February 22, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Discovery was properly limited to information material and necessary to the prosecution of plaintiffs claim, and properly conditioned upon plaintiffs execution of a confidentiality agreement upon a showing of defendant’s legitimate interest in keeping the financial affairs of itself and its clients private (see, Dawson v White & Case, 184 AD2d 246). We have considered plaintiffs various objections to the proposed confidentiality agreement and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Yatter v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 83, 710 N.Y.S.2d 525, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

273 A.D.2d 83 (Yatter v. William Morris Agency, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dawson v. White & Case
184 A.D.2d 246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)