Justice Joan Madden
Napoli, Kaiser & Bern (NKB) and its lawyers sought a protective order quashing a subpoena seeking to further depose Napoli as well as the production of documents. Connolly sued his ex-employer, NKB, and some of its members, alleging he was wrongfully discharged for refusing to participate in a “cover-up.” Defendants argued Connolly was not entitled to a second deposition of Napoli as he was already produced twice and Connolly filed his note of issue 18 months ago. The court found the subpoena seeking the earnings for all associates, attorneys and partners previously employed by NKB was overly broad and burdensome. Yet it stated some documents sought were potentially relevant to the amount of damages to which Connolly may be entitled, also noting, contrary to defendants’ contention, a prior court’s decisions granting defendants a protective order was not law of the case as the documents considered there were not sought here. Further, the court noted to obtain the discovery sought, the note of issue must be vacated as there were no unusual or unanticipated circumstances warranting permitting such discovery after the note of issue was filed.
