He limited discovery to what the current dispute required
In these cases, Justice Ruchelsman tied document requests to the facts still disputed. He required a separate reason for broader access and rejected attempts to revisit an earlier judgment.
Preparation point
Explain the missing fact and why other sources cannot provide it.
How it played outSituation, action, outcome
- The situation
- A party requested many documents or access beyond ordinary production.
- What he did
- He limited production to the disputed facts before allowing broader access.
- What made a difference
- An earlier judgment and information available elsewhere did not justify the additional requests.
In his words1 quote
“The remaining requests do not concern any alleged fraud”
Follman v Gruber, printed p. 8. His written reason for rejecting the remaining document requests.
In the cited cases4 rulings
Follman limited the fraud-related document requests. Musso ordered disclosure for the current case, but excluded questions about the earlier judgment.
In BN Textile, he deferred access to email passwords until ordinary document production occurred.
Newmark set aside the lawyer’s testimony subpoena because the information was not shown to be uniquely available from counsel.