New York Rules

Subscribe to New York Rules via RSS

Those who thought designating social media posts as “private” would be sufficient to shield them from outsiders—including opposing parties in litigation—had better think again. On February 13, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, unanimously held that the rules generally applicable to discovery in civil actions are just as applicable to “private” social media posts, and that they are therefore subject to disclosure if they are “reasonably calculated to contain evidence ‘material and necessary’ to the litigation.”  Forman v. Henkin, New York State Court of Appeals, No. 1 (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3101(a)).

Currently, the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules permit temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) to be issued without notice to the opposing party – though this practice is discouraged by most judges. CPLR § 6313(a). Notice is not required  if the moving party can demonstrate that there will be significant prejudice by reason of giving the notice. Commercial Division Rule 20. When notice is required, however, there is no requirement that the movant attach the underlying papers describing the ground for issuing a TRO.

In late 2016, the Commercial Division Advisory Council proffered a proposed rule, Proposed Rule 11-h, which would amend Rule 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts in New York to define the “good cause” under which court records could be sealed. “Good cause” to seal court records, as defined by the proposed rule, “may include the protection of proprietary or commercially sensitive information, including without limitation, (i) trade secrets, (ii) current or future business strategies, or (iii) other information that, if disclosed, is likely to cause economic injury or would otherwise be detrimental to the business of a party or third-party.” The Advisory Council has explained that the revised rule is designed to “clarify and highlight” that “the protection of proprietary sensitive business information in commercial disputes is an appropriate goal of, and ‘good cause’ for, sealing of selected documents or portions of documents filed in the course of litigation.” This is in keeping with a principal goal of the Advisory Council: to further enhance the reputation of the Commercial Division as a business friendly court.

A unanimous New York Court of Appeals recently held that the acceptance of an auction bid for the sale of a syndicated loan may constitute a final and binding trade, even if there is language indicating that the agreement is “subject to” the execution of a mutually acceptable, written agreement. The ruling overturns a New York Appellate Court decision that would have permitted parties to change their minds after agreeing to trades during a competitive online auction. The holding of New York’s highest court establishes that oral and electronic agreements in the debt and equity market can be sufficient under certain circumstances to form final and binding agreements.

A sharply divided New York Court of Appeals recently held that defendants who allegedly made intentional and repeated use of New York correspondent bank accounts for money laundering thereby purposefully transacted business related to the plaintiffs’ claims, and thus were subject to the personal jurisdiction of the New York courts. According to the three-judge dissent, the decision, Rushaid v. Pictet & Cie, broke with 40 years of precedent, expanding the reach of the state’s long arm statute to encompass individuals who performed no acts directed at New York. Because correspondent bank accounts enable foreign banks to facilitate transactions in U.S. currency and the U.S. market, and New York is the home of many correspondent banks, any expansion of personal jurisdiction in New York based on correspondent banking relationships could have a significant impact. Courts and practitioners may have to reconsider their assumptions about personal jurisdiction in future cases.

This month, the Office of Court Administration publicized three proposed changes to the NY Commercial Division Rules that received slightly less attention than the publication of the infamous Donald Trump/Billy Bush videotape and more ‘Wikileaked’ Hillary Clinton campaign emails. As with the changes we’ve discussed in previous posts, these proposed rules are designed to enhance efficiency, decrease costs, and promote the Commercial Division as a hospitable forum for commercial litigants. The three new proposals are discussed below.

As outlined in previous posts, the New York Commercial Division seeks to be a forward-thinking forum that adopts rule changes aimed at increasing efficiency and decreasing litigant costs. In August, a revised Model Preliminary Conference Order form was adopted for optional use by Division judges, even though the previous Preliminary Conference Order form had been approved only two years ago. The need for a revised form highlights the rapid changes in Commercial Division rules and the Division’s continuous efforts to stay up to date. The new form incorporates specific descriptions of many of the recently adopted rules and contains significant revisions to the sections governing pre-answer motion practice, document production, interrogatories, depositions, disclosure disputes, and e-discovery. This post discusses four of the more significant rule changes that are reflected in the new form.

The Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York recently adopted a new form of confidentiality order that eliminates the option to e-file documents redacted for confidentiality without a motion to seal. The new confidentiality form, which became effective on July 1, 2016, requires the “Producing Party” who originally designated the documents as confidential to file a motion to seal promptly after any party files redacted copies of the documents. This puts an end to the option of avoiding filing a motion to seal – an alternative that many attorneys had found convenient when confidential information was submitted to the court on a motion or at trial. The effect of the new rule will likely be to expose more confidential information used in litigation to public scrutiny, or to drive up the cost of avoiding such public exposure, or both.