Court Denies Motion To Hold Defendants In Civil Contempt, Holding Dispute Over Document Production Should Be Resolved Through Ordinary Discovery

Posted: August 3, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Discovery/Disclosure, Sanctions, Court Rules/Procedures

Court Denies Motion To Hold Defendants In Civil Contempt, Holding Dispute Over Document Production Should Be Resolved Through Ordinary Discovery

On May 6, 2026, in Bourbiaux v. Probst, Index No. 651161/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed denied plaintiffs' motion to hold defendants and their attorneys in civil contempt. The action arises from a partnership dispute over alleged asset diversions and alleged violations of an LLC operating agreement. The parties had resolved plaintiffs' earlier motion for a TRO and injunctive relief by a so-ordered stipulation, in which defendants agreed to provide plaintiffs with various business and financial records within 90 days. Plaintiffs then moved to hold defendants and their attorneys in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law §§ 753(A)(3), 756, and 773, or alternatively for sanctions under CPLR 3126, asserting that defendants failed to complete production by the deadline and that the noncompliance impaired plaintiffs' ability to quantify damages and value their ownership interests. Defendants contended that they had produced all responsive documents in their possession and that plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in good faith. The Court denied the motion, explaining:

Here, plaintiffs seek relief that is more appropriately addressed through ordinary discovery. As plaintiffs' own moving papers reflect, counsel exchanged emails in which plaintiffs requested either responsive documents or a sworn statement from defendants confirming that specific items are not within their possession, custody, or control. Whether plaintiffs seek to compel documents or such a sworn statement, those disputes are for the court to resolve in the ordinary course of discovery. Considering that no preliminary conference has been held in this case and no discovery demands have been issued, the court will schedule a conference pursuant to Part 43 — Practice Rules and Procedures 7(d) and Commercial Division Rule 14.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP have extensive experience handling and litigating discovery disputes in complex commercial litigation. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.