Filed: Feb. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 18, 2020
Summary: The discovery sought by defendants, including photographs, videos, and other social media postings regarding plaintiff's social and recreational activities that might contradict his claims of disability, is relevant, useful, and reasonable ( see Forman v Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656 , 665 [2018]; Vasquez-Santos v Mathew, 168 A.D.3d 587 [1st Dept 2019]). Plaintiff has not specified any items that may be irrelevant or private ( see Forman at 666-667), has not sought in limine review and has actual
Summary: The discovery sought by defendants, including photographs, videos, and other social media postings regarding plaintiff's social and recreational activities that might contradict his claims of disability, is relevant, useful, and reasonable ( see Forman v Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656 , 665 [2018]; Vasquez-Santos v Mathew, 168 A.D.3d 587 [1st Dept 2019]). Plaintiff has not specified any items that may be irrelevant or private ( see Forman at 666-667), has not sought in limine review and has actuall..
More
The discovery sought by defendants, including photographs, videos, and other social media postings regarding plaintiff's social and recreational activities that might contradict his claims of disability, is relevant, useful, and reasonable (see Forman v Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656, 665 [2018]; Vasquez-Santos v Mathew, 168 A.D.3d 587 [1st Dept 2019]). Plaintiff has not specified any items that may be irrelevant or private (see Forman at 666-667), has not sought in limine review and has actually agreed to execute an authorization releasing such information. Accordingly, the order directing disclosure only of posts regarding musical events and performances, was unduly restrictive.
We decline to consider plaintiff's argument that defendant's motion was defective pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7(c), since plaintiff failed to raise it below (see Wilson v Galicia Contr. & Restoration Corp., 10 N.Y.3d 827, 829 [2008]; U.S. Bank N.A. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 146 A.D.3d 603 [1st Dept 2017]). In any event, the motion sufficiently satisfied the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.7(c) (see Loeb v Assara N.Y. I L.P., 118 A.D.3d 457 [1st Dept 2014]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing.
