Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CPLR Amendment Simplifies Rules on Non-Party Discovery
A series of amendments to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ” 2305, 3120, and 3122 took effect on Sept. 1, 2003 and, among other things, eliminated the need for motions and court orders before a party may serve a subpoena duces tecum on a non-party. The amendments further require a copy of every subpoena duces tecum be served on all parties upon at least 20 days' notice. CPLR 3120(2),(3).
The non-party that receives the subpoena no longer needs to move to quash in order to preserve its rights. Instead, within 20 days of service, the non-party may proffer objections and serve a response to the subpoena that states the grounds for its objections with particularity. The burden then shifts to the party seeking discovery to move the court for the non-party's failure to comply. Prior to the amendments, only a party could proffer such objections.
Finally, the CPLR was amended to require the party receiving subpoenaed records to serve notice within 5 days thereof on all parties of the records received, and of their availability for inspection and copying at a specified time and place.CPLR 3120(3).
A series of amendments to the
The non-party that receives the subpoena no longer needs to move to quash in order to preserve its rights. Instead, within 20 days of service, the non-party may proffer objections and serve a response to the subpoena that states the grounds for its objections with particularity. The burden then shifts to the party seeking discovery to move the court for the non-party's failure to comply. Prior to the amendments, only a party could proffer such objections.
Finally, the CPLR was amended to require the party receiving subpoenaed records to serve notice within 5 days thereof on all parties of the records received, and of their availability for inspection and copying at a specified time and place.CPLR 3120(3).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.