If, however, the information sought by such a motion is obtainable by use of discovery mechanisms, the motion will be denied. In federal courts the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have replaced the use of a bill of particulars with a motion for a more definite statement. State codes of civil procedure impose rules that govern the use of bills of particulars in civil actions brought in state court. It is not to be used as a discovery device to learn the evidence or strategy to be used at trial by the opposing party. A bill of particulars is neither a pleading nor proof of the facts it states, but, rather, an elucidation of a pleading. It also serves to expedite the orderly progress of judicial proceedings by reducing, if not eliminating, the need for the amendment of ambiguous or vague pleadings. Its function is to give the party who requests it knowledge of what the opposing party has alleged in order to protect the party requesting the bill from surprise and in order to establish the real issues of the action. A bill can be submitted either voluntarily or pursuant to a court order for compliance with the demand. Although usually requested by a defendant, it can be demanded by a plaintiff if the defendant makes a counterclaim for a setoff or asserts a defense against him or her. In civil actions a bill of particulars is a written demand for the specifics of why an action at law was brought. Contact Schlam Stone & Dolan partner John Lundin at if you or a client has a question regarding discovery obligations (and what to do if a litigant is not honoring those obligations).A written statement used in both civil and criminal actions that is submitted by a plaintiff or a prosecutor at the request of a defendant, giving the defendant detailed information concerning the claims or charges made against him or her. As this decision shows, a bill of particulars is intended to amplify the allegations of a pleading, not as a substitute for discovery devices, such as interrogatories. The scope of discovery in New York is broad, but it does not include the device discussed here: a demand for a bill of particulars. (Internal quotations and citations omitted).Ī big part of complex commercial litigation is giving, receiving and evaluating evidence (this is called "discovery"). Accordingly, the Defendants' Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars is vacated. The Defendants may not avoid the limitation on the number of interrogatories by simply calling it a demand for a bill of particulars. However, such requests are improper in a bill of particulars and must be sought in the form of interrogatories pursuant to Rule 11-a of the Commercial Division Rules or by another appropriate disclosure device. Significantly, the majority of the requests vaguely ask the Plaintiff to "state the basis for the allegations" for nearly every paragraph of the 95 paragraph, highly detailed complaint (Requests 13-75). To wit, the Defendants' Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars seeks the identification of witnesses with knowledge of relevant information (requests 1 and 2), and a computation of damages (request 11). Here, the Defendants' Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars, which contains 75 paragraphs, excluding subparts, seeks details more appropriately developed at a deposition and not consonant with the purposes of a bill of particulars. In this case, no such expansion was requested or provided. In addition, the commercial division rules limit interrogatories to 25, including subparts, unless the court provides a different limit in the preliminary conference order. When a bill of particulars is replete with palpably improper evidentiary requests, the proper remedy is vacatur of the bill of particulars. In other words, the purpose of the bill of particulars is to amplify the pleading, limit the proof, and prevent surprise at trial, but it is not a vehicle to obtain evidentiary material. In fact, although the drafters of the CPLR also recommended its abolishment in conjunction with the expansion of the disclosure statutes now found in article 31, the Legislature retained the bill of particulars, not as a disclosure device, but in its traditional and limited role as a means of amplifying a pleading. The bill of particulars has been abolished in many jurisdictions, including in the federal courts, as broader disclosure statutes have rendered them superfluous. 32944(U), vacating a demand for a bill of particulars because it was being used as a discovery device, explaining: On September 8, 2020, Justice Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Orentreich v. Categories Commercial, Discovery/Disclosure Demand for a Bill of Particulars Vacated Because it Was Being Used as a Discovery Device
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |