NY CPLR § 3103: Protective Orders

CPLR § 3103 is the primary mechanism in New York civil practice for regulating discovery to prevent abuse. It authorizes courts to deny, limit, condition, or regulate disclosure when necessary to protect parties, nonparties, or the court itself from prejudice.

This post explains what CPLR § 3103 authorizes and how its three subdivisions fit together.

The Statute (CPLR § 3103)

§ 3103. Protective orders.

(a) Prevention of abuse. The court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any party or of any person from whom or about whom discovery is sought, make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device. Such order shall be designed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts.

(b) Suspension of disclosure pending application for protective order. Service of a notice of motion for a protective order shall suspend disclosure of the particular matter in dispute.

(c) Suppression of information improperly obtained. If any disclosure under this article has been improperly or irregularly obtained so that a substantial right of a party is prejudiced, the court, on motion, may make an appropriate order, including an order that the information be suppressed.

Subdivision (a): Prevention of Abuse

Subdivision (a) sets out the core authority of CPLR § 3103. It empowers the court to issue a protective order:

• at any time,
• on its own initiative, or
• on motion by:
  • a party, or
  • a person from whom or about whom discovery is sought.

The statute is deliberately broad. A protective order may deny, limit, condition, or regulate discovery, and must be designed to prevent:

• unreasonable annoyance,
• expense,
• embarrassment,
• disadvantage, or
• other prejudice,

to any person or to the courts.

The focus of subdivision (a) is not whether discovery is generally permissible, but whether the manner, scope, or use of discovery would result in undue prejudice.

Subdivision (b): Automatic Suspension Pending Motion

Subdivision (b) addresses timing. It provides that:

Service of a notice of motion for a protective order shall suspend disclosure of the particular matter in dispute.

This subdivision operates automatically. Once a notice of motion for a protective order is served, disclosure of the specific discovery at issue is suspended while the motion is pending.

The suspension is limited to the matter in dispute and does not, by its terms, stay all discovery in the action.

Subdivision (c): Suppression of Improperly Obtained Information

Subdivision (c) addresses a different problem: discovery that has already occurred.

If disclosure has been:

• improperly obtained, or
• irregularly obtained,

and a substantial right of a party is prejudiced as a result, the court may make an appropriate order. The statute expressly includes suppression of the improperly obtained information among the available remedies.

Subdivision (c) thus allows the court to address discovery abuse retroactively, after disclosure has taken place.

How the Subdivisions Fit Together

Taken together, CPLR § 3103 provides a unified framework for discovery control:

• Subdivision (a) authorizes proactive regulation to prevent abuse.
• Subdivision (b) temporarily halts disputed disclosure while the court considers a protective order.
• Subdivision (c) provides remedies when improper disclosure has already occurred.

Each subdivision addresses a different stage of the discovery process, but all are directed toward preventing or remedying prejudice arising from disclosure.