Judge James Matthews

Read Full-Text Decision

Insurer moved for dismissal alleging non-compliance with discovery demands. Alternatively, it sought an order striking provider’s notice of trial and compelling response to discovery demands. Provider cross-moved for a protective order, but same was denied as untimely because it failed to object by filing a motion for same within 20 days of receiving insurer’s demands. Insurer sought discovery to support its defense that provider was ineligible to recover no-fault benefits as it was a fraudulently incorporated professional service corporation. The court noted such defense was not precluded, and contrary to provider’s claims, it found insurer set forth detailed reasons supporting the possible fraudulent incorporation by provider, which, if true, would bar provider from recovering no-fault benefits. As such, same demonstrated insurer’s requests for discovery were both material and necessary to the defense of these actions. Yet, the court denied insurer’s motion to vacate provider’s notice of trial and dismissal of the complaint conditioned on plaintiff providing meaningful responses to all prior discovery demands. In the event of provider’s failure to comply, it would be precluded from offering documents called for in discovery demands at trial.