Matter of Kapon v. Koch

In Matter of Kapon v. Koch, 23 NY3d 32 [2014] the Court of Appeals rejected the argument "that CPLR 3101 (a) [(4)] contains distinctions between disclosure required of parties and nonparties" (Kapon at 36), and has also instructed that CPLR "3101 (a) (4) imposes no requirement that the subpoenaing party demonstrate that it cannot obtain the requested disclosure from any other source" (id. at 38). Moreover, if the subpoenaing party complies with the notice requirement promulgated by CPLR 3101 (a) (4), it merely needs to establish that the discovery it seeks is "material and necessary" to the prosecution or defense of the action (id.). However, with a motion to quash a subpoena, the party or nonparty still must establish that the discovery sought is "utterly irrelevant" to the action or that the "futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious" (id.) The Court of Appeals clarified the standard to be applied on a motion to quash a non-party subpoena pursuant to CPLR 2304. It held that CPLR 3101 (a) (4) "imposes no requirement that the subpoenaing party demonstrate that it cannot obtain the requested disclosure from any other source," but, rather, "so long as the disclosure sought is relevant to the prosecution or defense of an action, it must be provided by the nonparty" (Id. at 38).