Commercial Division Blog: Current Developments in the Commercial Divisions of the New York State Courts

You searched for: "Motion to Compel"

Search Results

October 6, 2023 Defendant Must Personally File Jackson Affidavit Where Defendant Claims to Have No Documents Responsive to Certain Categories
On September 6, 2023, Justice Jennifer G. Schechter of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in PJSC Natl. Bank Trust v Pirogova, Index No. 160130/2020, 2023 NY Slip Op 33050(U) on plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to certain interrogatories and document requests. The Court held in part that, where the defendant claimed to have no documents responsive to certain categories of document requests, that defendant herself must provide a “Jackson Affidavit” attesting to the lack of documents. Specifically, the Court explained: Read More
September 1, 2023 Court Compels Deposition of Individual with Unique Personal Knowledge of Critical Factual Issues
On July 3, 2023, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Apotex Corp. v. Hospira Healthcare India Private Ltd., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3340, granting defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff to produce a specific individual for a deposition. The Court had previously denied a motion seeking the same relief without prejudice as premature. The Court now determined that the defendants had sufficiently shown that the individual possessed unique personal knowledge that other deponents and discovery had not been able to provide, explaining: Read More
April 12, 2023 Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied Despite Reference to Arbitration in Forum Selection Clause
On March 28, 2023, Justice Joel M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in FFS Data Corp. v. the OLB Group, Inc., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1377. The Court denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration based on a dispute resolution provision contained in an asset purchase agreement between the parties. The Court noted that the provision in question “is a marvel of linguistic misdirection”, but ultimately determined that the defendant “has not carried its burden of establishing that the parties had a clear, explicit and unequivocal agreement mandating that they arbitrate disputes arising out of the APA.” The Court explained: Read More