Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Decided October 21, 2010.
519*519 Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Freedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
The court properly denied plaintiff's motion for a protective order, since plaintiff failed to show that there was anything unreasonable or improper about defendants' demands for its tax returns (see Pyfrom v Tishman Constr. Co. of N.Y., 270 AD2d 24 ; Gitlin v Chirinkin, 71 AD3d 728 ).
Under these circumstances, directing plaintiff to produce documents in electronic form may be an appropriate response to defendants' argument that they have insufficient office space in which to review voluminous papers, but requiring plaintiff to bear the cost of the production imposes an undue burden on it, since, generally, the cost of production is borne by the party requesting the production, and the cost of creating electronic documents here would not have been inconsequential (see Waltzer v Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 31 AD3d 302, 304 ).
End of Document.
Please send us your feedback, comments, questions or suggestions for additional features that would improve eDA for you.