In Hanover Ins. Co. v. Lama (164 Misc 2d 843), the Appellate Term for the 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, had occasion to comment on the then recent amendments to Article 31 of the CPLR. It was noted that the former procedure, which required a motion in order to object to a burdensome demand, was being altered to provide a system wherein a dialogue between the parties would be the preferred mode of action. In that case, the demand was so burdensome and outrageous that in combining the provisions of CPLR 3103 (a) with the new requirements of CPLR 3133 (a), the Court held that: "Where the demand is so outrageous and where it seeks information which is not at all relevant to the suit, the chances of dialogue envisioned by the Legislature are nil and the result anticipated by the amendment can no longer have any chance for success. Notwithstanding the amendment, no court or party should be placed in the position of having to 'prune' a demand such as this. A motion for a protective order under CPLR 3103 (a) should be allowed wherein a party has the right to move to vacate the entire demand and require the other party to resubmit the demand in a less oppressive form."