X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=47231 Judge Pardes PLAINTIFF LEXIS-NEXIS sued defendant law firm for payment for computerized research services. The law firm sought an order compelling Lexis’s response to the firm’s demand for a bill of particulars, arguing that the company failed to answer requests for customers’ identities. Claiming that the information sought constituted “confidential” “trade secrets” irrelevant to its action, Lexis-Nexis sought a protective order, asserting that as a national corporation with “hundreds of thousand of customers” the law firm’s demands were overly burdensome. Citing Northway Engineering Inc. v. Felex Industries Inc., the court ruled that the unanswered demands are irrelevant to the plaintiff’s complaint and thus are not properly demands to amplify or supplement the complaint. Citing Editel, New York v. Liberty Studios, the court found that the law firm’s demands relating to “each and every” Lexis-Nexis customer, without limitation as to date, were overly broad, vague and burdensome.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.