As readers of this blog are well aware, we here at New York Commercial Division Practice repeatedly discuss decisions by the Commercial Division emphasizing strict adherence to the Commercial Division Rules. Nowhere is that clearer, and more common, than Commercial Division Rules 14 and 24, which require parties to make a good-faith effort to resolve certain discovery disputes before seeking judicial intervention. A recent decision issued by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Robert R. Reed sheds light on the consequences of filing a motion in contravention of the requirements under Commercial Division Rule 14.
Background
In Slice Wireless Servs., LLC v Yakubov, et al., a WiFi service company brought an action seeking injunctive relief and damages for "flagrant and repeated breaches" of the non-solicitation and confidentiality obligations of its former officers and their new, competing company. In January 2025, the parties appeared for a status conference regarding discovery. At the conference, the court ordered the parties to complete post-deposition discovery and to provide a Jackson affidavit for any demanded documents not in the parties' possession. The court further instructed that any party seeking discovery relief must first (i) meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute (Commercial Division Rule 14); and (ii) file a letter for leave to file a motion if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute (Commercial Division Rule 24).
An additional status conference was held in April 2025, at which neither party submitted a Commercial Division Rule 14 or 24 application to the court. Nevertheless, in June 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel without proper leave of court.
Analysis
The court in Slice Wireless Servs., LLC v Yakubov, et al., opened its analysis by acknowledging that the "Commercial Division Rules are to be followed in all matters assigned to the Commercial Division Parts and may not be disregarded." The court then highlighted Commercial Division Rule 14, which provides:
Discovery disputes are preferred to be resolved through court conference as opposed to motion practice and requires that counsel consult with one another in a good faith effort to resolve all disputes about disclosure. If counsel are unable to resolve any disclosure dispute in this fashion, counsel for the moving party shall submit a letter to the court not exceeding three single-spaced pages outlining the nature of the dispute and requesting a telephone conference. Such a letter must include a representation that the party has conferred with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the letter or shall indicate good cause why no such consultation occurred...The failure of counsel to comply with this rule may result in a motion being held in abeyance until the court has an opportunity to conference the matter.
Based on its reading of Commercial Division Rule 14, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel, noting that the plaintiff filed its motion "in contravention of this court's explicit directives" and failed to comply with Commercial Division Rule 14. Citing relevant precedent, the court warned the plaintiff that "the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained" and that it would not tolerate any further actions that would deprive it from supervising discovery in an organized manner.
Takeaway
The lesson from Slice Wireless is simple: the Commercial Division's discovery rules, especially Rules 14 and 24 (i.e., meet-and-confer and letter-motion requirements), are strictly enforced. Even if the substantive merits of a discovery motion are strong, a litigant's failure to follow the Rules is the quickest way to lose the motion. Check the Rules, folks. Always check the Rules.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
