Facts
- The plaintiff sued for damages alleging assault and a scheme to defraud, and sought punitive damages.
- Defendants denied liability and asserted justification based on the plaintiff’s conduct and threats.
- At the plaintiff’s deposition, defense counsel asked whether the plaintiff had ever been convicted of a crime, whether he had used any other name within the prior five years, and what his addresses had been during that period.
- Plaintiff’s counsel objected and instructed the plaintiff not to answer.
- Defendants moved to compel answers, relying on New York’s broad disclosure rule and the admissibility of convictions to impeach credibility.
Issues
- Whether, under CPLR 3101(a), a civil plaintiff can be compelled at deposition to answer questions about prior criminal convictions as information material and necessary to the defense.
- Whether a civil plaintiff can be compelled at deposition to disclose other names used and addresses over the prior five years as discoverable identifying information tied to credibility investigation.
Decision
- The court granted defendants’ motion to compel.
- The plaintiff was ordered to answer all three deposition questions regarding convictions, other names used within five years, and addresses during the same period.
Legal Principles
- CPLR 3101(a) permits broad pretrial disclosure of matter “material and necessary” to prosecution or defense, construed to include information that may assist trial preparation and evaluation of proof.
- Under CPLR 4513, prior criminal convictions may be used to impeach a witness’s credibility; therefore, a party-witness’s conviction history is a proper subject of discovery when the party is likely to testify.
- Discovery is not confined to facts proving liability or damages; it may include impeachment-oriented inquiry that bears on credibility.
- Basic identifying information, including aliases and residence history, is generally discoverable where it facilitates investigation of a witness’s background relevant to credibility.
Conclusion
The court held that New York’s liberal discovery rules allow pretrial examination into a party-witness’s prior convictions, aliases, and recent addresses because such information bears on credibility and is material and necessary to trial preparation.