Opinion ID: 2166829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Steering Committee

Text: Plaintiffs are represented by a Steering Committee, which was created by a judicial consolidation order dated July 29, 1994. It joins more than 175 cases for trial, discovery and motions. However, at a point prior to the creation of the Steering Committee and the joinder of the various cases, discovery issues arose in two of the discrete actions. In August 1993, Phoenix Assurance Company of New York sought subrogation against the PA to recover money it paid to one of its policyholders for property damage claims ( Phoenix Assur. Co. v Port Auth., Sup Ct, NY County, No. 120788/93). In December 1993, Phoenix demanded production of the OSP Report, reports prepared by the PA's security consultants, and related data. The PA turned over some material, but objected to disclosure of 68 documents. (Plaintiffs refer to 62 disputed documents, though the PA considers certain pages of multiplepage documents as constituting separate documents, yielding a count of 68 documents.) The PA sought to shield the OSP Report and documents related to it, including documents categorized as security audit[s] that identify possible vulnerabilities of security systems at the WTC. Phoenix then moved to compel production of the withheld documents. In April 1994, plaintiffs in another case ( Dean Witter Reynolds v Port Auth., Sup Ct, NY County, No. 106016/94) also moved to compel nonparty security consultants to comply with subpoenas duces tecum, by producing particular documents within the pending discovery motion in the Phoenix case. The documents encompassed within these two motions are the core focus of this appeal by the PA from an Appellate Division order that essentially directed a complete turnover to plaintiffs. This disclosure was qualified only by a confidentiality agreement that was to be negotiated on the remittal at the nisi prius court level.