SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

988 

CA 13-01818 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

 

CONLEY & SON EXCAVATING CO., LTD., 

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE DELTA ALLIANCE, LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,

AND MCDONALD’S REAL ESTATE COMPANY OF COLUMBIA, 

MARYLAND, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

BOUSQUET HOLSTEIN PLLC, SYRACUSE (JAMES L. SONNEBORN OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SHEATS & BAILEY, PLLC, BREWERTON (JASON B. BAILEY OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Seneca County (Dennis

F. Bender, A.J.), entered September 18, 2013. The order, among other

things, denied the cross motion of defendant McDonald’s Real Estate

Company of Columbia, Maryland for a protective and confidentiality

order. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by vacating the second through fourth

ordering paragraphs and granting the cross motion insofar as it sought

to condition disclosure upon plaintiff’s execution of a

confidentiality agreement, and as modified the order is affirmed

without costs. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia,

to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien arising out of a construction

project on property owned by defendant McDonald’s Real Estate Company

of Columbia, Maryland (MREC). Plaintiff had entered into a

subcontract with defendant The Delta Alliance, LLC (Delta), the

general contractor on the construction project, to provide building

and site demolition in connection with the rebuilding of a McDonald’s

restaurant. Plaintiff moved to compel MREC to disclose, inter alia,

the original contract between Delta and MREC and any amendments

thereto. MREC asserted that the requested documents contained

confidential, proprietary business information, and cross-moved for a

protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a). We agree with MREC that

Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the cross motion

insofar as it sought to condition disclosure of the documents on

plaintiff’s execution of a confidentiality agreement (see Kimmel v

State of New York, 302 AD2d 908, 908; see generally Herbenson v
-2- 988 

CA 13-01818 

Carrols Corp., 101 AD3d 1220, 1221-1222). We therefore modify the

order accordingly. “Discoverability of such documents involves a

two-fold analysis: the moving party must show that the discovery

demand would require it to reveal a trade secret, which then shifts

the burden of the responding party to show that the information was

indispensable to proving its [case]” (Finch, Pruyn & Co. v Niagara

Paper Co., 228 AD2d 834, 837, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 979). Here,

MREC met its burden of establishing that the documents sought by

plaintiff contained information “not known by those outside the

business, [and that the documents] were kept under lock and key, were

the product of substantial effort and expense, and could not be easily

acquired or duplicated” (Terwilliger v Max Co., Ltd., 64 AD3d 1232,

1233; see Finch, Pruyn & Co., 228 AD2d at 837). We nevertheless

conclude that plaintiff established that the documents sought “were

indispensable to [its] case and were otherwise unavailable if they

could not be obtained from [MREC]” (Terwilliger, 64 AD3d at 1233; see

Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear v Isolatek Intl. Corp., 300

AD2d 1047, 1048). 

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court