• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


New York’s Commercial Dispute Rocket Docket

0
by Renee Kolar

Thursday, Jun 05, 2014


Tweet

The state of New York now offers a consensual accelerated commercial dispute docket for the Commercial Division of its State courts.  Rule 9 of Section 202.70(g) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme and County Courts provides that disputing parties who consent to this process must be ready for trial in nine months (including completion of mandatory mediation).

This accelerated process, however, comes with certain procedural trade-offs, such as discovery limitations and waivers of certain procedural rights and objections.  For example, the parties waive objections to personal jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens; they waive the right to jury trial, the right to recover punitive or exemplary damages, and the right to an interlocutory appeal. Discovery limitations include limitations on the number of interrogatories, the number of requests to admit, and the number of depositions. E-discovery has also been limited by requiring the description of custodians from whom electronic documents may be collected to be narrowly tailored to include only those individuals whose electronic documents may reasonably be expected to contain evidence that is material to the dispute.  The rule also provides that if the costs and burden of complying with e-discovery requests are disproportionate to the nature of the dispute or the amount in controversy, the court will deny such requests or fashion a cost-shifting remedy.

Rule 9 proposes the following model clause for parties to put in their contracts to agree in advance to this accelerated procedure:

“Subject to the requirements for a case to be heard in the Commercial Division, the parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Division, New York State Supreme Court, and to the application of the Court’s accelerated procedures, in connection with any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach, termination, enforcement or validity thereof.”

For more details, see Rule 9 in full below.

Rule 9. Accelerated Adjudication Actions.

a) This rule is applicable to all actions, except to class actions brought under Article 9 of the CPLR, in which the court by written consent of the parties is authorized to apply the accelerated adjudication procedures of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court.  One way for parties to express their consent to this accelerated adjudication process is by using specific language in a contract, such as: “Subject to the requirements for a case to be heard in the Commercial Division, the parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Division, New York State Supreme Court, and to the application of the Court’s accelerated procedures, in connection with any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach, termination, enforcement or validity thereof. “

b) In any matter proceeding through the accelerated process, all pre-trial proceedings, including all discovery, pre-trial motions and mandatory mediation, shall be completed and the parties shall be ready for trial within nine (9) months from the date of filing of a Request of Judicial Intervention (RJI).

c) In any accelerated action, the court shall deem the parties to have irrevocably waived:

  1. any objections based on lack of personal jurisdiction or the doctrine of forum non conveniens;
  2. the right to trial by jury;
  3. the right to recover punitive or exemplary damages;
  4. the right to any interlocutory appeal; and
  5. the right to discovery, except to such discovery as the parties might otherwise agree or as follows: (i) There shall be no more than seven (7) interrogatories and five (5) requests to admit; (ii) Absent a showing of good cause, there shall be no more than seven (7) discovery depositions per side with no deposition to exceed seven (7) hours in length. Such depositions can be done either in person at the location of the deponent, a party or their counsel or in real time by any electronic video device; and (iii) Documents requested by the parties shall be limited to those relevant to a claim or defense in the action and shall be restricted in terms of time frame, subject matter and persons or entities to which the requests pertain.

 

d) In an accelerated action, electronic discovery shall proceed as follows unless the parties agree otherwise: (i) the production of electronic documents shall normally be made in a searchable format that is usable by the party receiving the e-documents; (ii) the description of custodians from whom electronic documents may be collected shall be narrowly tailored to include only those individuals whose electronic documents may reasonably be expected to contain evidence that is material to the dispute; and (iii) where the costs and burdens of e-discovery are disproportionate to the nature of the dispute or to the amount in controversy, or to the relevance of the materials requested, the court will either deny such requests or order disclosure on condition that the requesting party advance the reasonable cost of production to the other side, subject to the allocation of costs in the final judgment.

 

Related Posts

  • Supreme Court of Guam Upholds Harris County, Texas Court’s Order Confirming Arbitration AwardSupreme Court of Guam Upholds Harris County, Texas Court’s Order Confirming Arbitration Award
  • Jay-Z Withdraws Motion for Preliminary Injunction After AAA Pledges to Diversify Arbitrator RosterJay-Z Withdraws Motion for Preliminary Injunction After AAA Pledges to Diversify Arbitrator Roster
  • One-Third of Online Retailers in the U.S. Now Require Consumer Arbitration or Restrict Class-Action LawsuitsOne-Third of Online Retailers in the U.S. Now Require Consumer Arbitration or Restrict Class-Action Lawsuits
  • Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Decide Whether Construction Dispute Should be ArbitratedTexas Supreme Court Agrees to Decide Whether Construction Dispute Should be Arbitrated
  • Texas Supreme Court Holds Agreement to Arbitrate is Not Substantively Unconscionable Despite Unenforceable ProvisionsTexas Supreme Court Holds Agreement to Arbitrate is Not Substantively Unconscionable Despite Unenforceable Provisions
  • Texas Supreme Court Holds Law Firm Did Not Waive Arbitration in Fee DisputeTexas Supreme Court Holds Law Firm Did Not Waive Arbitration in Fee Dispute

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Renee Kolar

Renée Kolar received her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in December 2012 and passed the February 2013 Texas Bar Exam. Her experience living abroad and studying translation taught her that misunderstandings between people arise not just from their language differences, but also from the absence of a shared cultural background.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy