State of New York

Subscribe to State of New York via RSS

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.

Last Thursday, the New York Court of Appeals issued a stark reminder to transactional lawyers: no matter how much “common interest” two parties may have with respect to a transaction, the common interest doctrine may not protect their communications.

In Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., New York’s highest court held, in a 4-2 decision, that a party waives its attorney-client privilege if it shares privileged information with another party unless (i) those two parties share a common legal interest, (ii) the communication between the parties was made in furtherance of that legal interest, and (iii) the communication relates to pending or anticipated litigation.

The New York Supreme Court’s Commercial Division Advisory Council has recommended a rule that it believes would substantially expedite non-jury trials and facilitate cross examination with no adverse effects. According to the Council “such a rule would highlight the availability of a practice … that has been found by some judges and attorneys to streamline trials and facilitate crisper cross-examination of witnesses.” The proposed rule would allow courts to require direct testimony in affidavit form of a party’s own witness in a non-jury trial or evidentiary hearing. The proposed rule reads as follows:

In Jinnaras v. Alfant, decided on May 5, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a proposed settlement of a shareholder class action, where the proposed settlement would have deprived out-of-state class members of a “cognizable property interest” by failing to provide a mechanism for class members residing…

In a 3-2 split decision, a New York appellate court determined that a forum selection clause providing for litigation in New York courts had not been explicitly terminated and thus trumped agreements to submit to arbitration in London provided in later contracts that cancelled the previous one. Thus, the appellate panel for the First Department in New York reversed a lower court decision and directed the parties in Garthon Business, Inc., et al. v. Stein, et al., to proceed with their claims in court as opposed to arbitration in London.

In-house counsel often communicate with corporate management under the assumption that these communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege— absent some type of unusual and extraordinary circumstance, such as waiver of the privilege or the crime-fraud exception. A surprising number of both in-house and outside counsel, however, are unfamiliar with the longstanding “fiduciary exception” to the attorney-client privilege. Forty-five years ago, in Garner v. Wolfinbarger, the Fifth Circuit allowed the attorney-client privilege of a corporation to be pierced by the corporation’s shareholders upon a showing of “good cause.” While some courts have rejected this approach, a New York appellate court recently joined other courts, including the Delaware Supreme Court (see Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund) in adopting it.