Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, Plaintiff, Keyspan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Home Insurance Company, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 10, 2003, which, in an action involving environmental insurance coverage, inter alia, (1) prohibited the parties and their counsel from unilaterally initiating contact with plaintiff insured's former employees who are potential witnesses, (2) explicitly directed how such employees could be contacted and advised as to their right to counsel, including the court's recommendation in that regard, and (3) directed that if any such witness still wanted counsel at the deposition, that each side offer to provide counsel at no cost to the witness, that such counsel be present to avoid delay, and that the witness make a selection as between the alternatives presented, and (4) limited such witness's pre-deposition consultation with counsel to one hour unless all counsel agreed otherwise, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The subject order, establishing procedures for contacting plaintiff's former employees in advance of their depositions and for offering them legal representation thereat, was a proper exercise of discretion. It effectively preserves the right to full disclosure while avoiding the appearance of impropriety or tactical advantage that would result were either side permitted to offer the witnesses legal representation prior to their depositions. The time, place and manner restrictions on pre-deposition ex parte communications are imposed equally against both sides, and nothing in the order precludes a witness from selecting the attorney offered to him/her by plaintiff's counsel. The one-hour restriction on consultation is warranted by the nature of the disclosure sought and case management considerations. We reject plaintiff's argument that its counsel has an ethical obligation under 22 NYCRR 1200.32 to provide representation to its former employees. We also reject plaintiff's arguments that the order violates its constitutional right to communicate with witnesses and the witnesses' constitutional right to counsel.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 22, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)