Defendants move to compel plaintiff to supplement her responses to their document demands and interrogatories and to produce responsive documents. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Demand Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 21, 23, and 24 are overbroad and unduly burdensome as framed; and the court declines to attempt to prune them into a more manageable form. Plaintiff need not supplement her responses (or produce documents) with respect to these demands.

With respect to Demand Nos. 3 and 4, plaintiff must respond to these requests to the extent of producing documents sufficient to evidence her ownership interest in East Side Associates and her admission as a limited partner into East Side Associates. That defendants assertedly issued plaintiff K-1 partnership tax forms does not foreclose them from seeking [*2]additional documents bearing on her partnership interest, as plaintiff contends.

With respect to Demand Nos. 12, 14, and 15, plaintiff must respond to these requests to the extent of producing documents sufficient to evidence Martin Stamler's partnership or ownership interest in East Side Associates and the conveyance of that interest from Martin Stamler to plaintiff.

The Uniform Rules for the Trial Courts limit the number of interrogatories to 25, including subparts. (22 NYCRR 202.20.) This set of interrogatories, as served, vastly exceeds that limit.

Interrogatory Nos. 7, 9, 12, 13, and 18 are overbroad and unduly burdensome as framed. Additionally, Interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, and 18 appear to be more in the nature of a demand for a bill of particulars, which is not available in non-matrimonial actions like this one if a party has also served interrogatories. (See CPLR 3130 [1].) Plaintiff need not supplement her responses to these interrogatories.

With respect to Interrogatory No. 5, plaintiff must supplement her response to the extent of identifying the documents relied on in drafting the complaint.

With respect to Interrogatory No. 8, plaintiff must, to the extent possible, identify the amount in, and categories of, damages that she seeks, and her basis for claiming each amount and category of damages.

With respect to Interrogatory Nos. 19 and 20, plaintiff must respond to these interrogatories.

Plaintiff cross-moves for a protective order shielding her from having to respond further to defendants' discovery requests, and to compel defendants to respond further to her own requests. The request for a protective order is denied as academic given the court's disposition of defendants' motion to compel. The request to compel is resolved as follows.

Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to numerous document requests seeking financial and other business-related records of East Side Associates. (See NYSCEF No. 80 at ¶ 28.) Defendants' position is that, taking into account their supplemental responses to plaintiff's requests, they have fully responded to those requests. (See NYSCEF No. 91 at 6.) But the supplemental responses do not even mention several requests for which defendants' initial response was that they would search for and produce any responsive documents. With respect to the requests that the supplemental responses do address, those responses are uniformly that defendants have no responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. (See generally NYSCEF No. 88.) It is difficult for the court to understand—and defendants do not attempt to explain—how this could be so if East Side Associates is a bona fide going concern.

At the same time, many of these discovery requests effectively duplicate aspects of the ultimate relief that plaintiff seeks in this action. The court declines to award that ultimate relief prematurely by entering a discovery order compelling East Side Associates to produce all of the requested records. Defendants must produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 21 and 32. With respect to the remaining requests identified in plaintiff's cross-motion papers (see NYSCEF [*3]No. 80 at ¶ 28), defendants must provide a detailed affidavit of diligent search that explains both what steps were taken to locate the requested records; whether such records ever existed, and, if so, what happened to them; and, if not, why those records were never generated. This determination is without prejudice to plaintiff serving a more limited set of requests with respect to East Side Associates that does not duplicate the ultimate records-related relief that she seeks.

Plaintiff also seeks to compel response to several document requests seeking detailed personal financial records from defendant Michael Appell. (See id. at ¶ 31.) Plaintiff's only stated basis for compelling production of those records is that they are "exceedingly relevant to Plaintiff's claims alleged in the complaint." (NYSCEF No. 80 at ¶ 33.) This bare assertion is unpersuasive. Nor does the complaint itself include allegations that would establish the relevance of the full swathe of records being sought.

The complaint alleges in general terms that Appell "engaged in acts outside the ordinary course of business" of East Side Associates "by making investments of [East Side Associates'] property and/or assets purely for his personal benefit or the benefit of his family members, including but not limited to" David Appell. (NYSCEF No. 1 at ¶ 40.) The only example provided of this kind of investment is Michael Appell's alleged decision to "extend a mortgage loan to David Appell" that was not in the best interest of East Side Associates. (Id. at 41 [block capitalization omitted].) The complaint also alleges that Appell also took excessive fees for these investments and makes distributions from East Side Associates assets to other partners but not to plaintiff.

Appell must produce records responsive to Request Nos. 20 and 22. Absent more detailed allegations describing the asserted self-dealing by Appell, the court sees no basis at this time to require production of documents responsive to the remaining requests identified in plaintiff's cross-motion papers.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the branch of defendants' motion seeking to compel plaintiff to supplement her response to defendants' document requests is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above, and plaintiff must respond and produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 3, 4, 12, 14, and 15, limited as described above, within 30 days from service of notice of entry; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of defendants' motion seeking to compel plaintiff to supplement her response to defendants' interrogatories is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above, and plaintiff must supplement her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 8, 19, and 20, limited as described above, within 30 days from service of notice of entry; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of plaintiff's cross-motion seeking entry of a protective order is denied as academic; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of plaintiff's cross-motion seeking to compel defendants to supplement their response to defendants' document requests is granted in part and denied in part; and defendants must respond and produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 20, 21, 22, and 32, within 30 days from service of notice of entry; and must, within that time, provide an affidavit of diligent search, containing the information described above, with respect to Request Nos. 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 23, 24, 25, and 26; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall appear before this court for a telephonic status conference on March 7, 2025.