Pursuant to the authority vested in me, and with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts, I hereby amend section 200.15 of the Uniform Rules for Courts Exercising Criminal Jurisdiction, relating to the appointment of special district attorneys, to read as follows, effective immediately:

§ 200.15. Appointment of a Special District Attorney

Any party filing with a superior court an application for appointment of a special district attorney, pursuant to section 701 of the County Law, shall make the application to the Chief Administrator of the Courts or to an appropriate Deputy Chief Administrative Judge. The Chief Administrator, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, or appropriate Administrative Judge shall assign a superior court judge to consider the application as provided by law, selected from a list of judges established for that purpose that has been approved by the Chief Administrator and [in consultation and agreement with] the Presiding Justice of the appropriate Appellate Division[, then shall designate a superior court judge to consider the application as provided by law].

Administrative Order AO/173/88 is hereby superseded, and shall be of no further force or effect.

Pursuant to the authority vested in me, and with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts, I hereby amend, effective September 2, 2014, sections 202.70( d)-(e) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme and County Courts (Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division), relating to assignment and transfer of cases, to read as follows:

* * *

22 NYCRR § 202.70(d) Assignment to the Commercial Division

Within 90 days following service of the complaint, any party may seek assignment of a case to the Commercial Division by filing a [A party seeking assignment of a case to the Commercial Division shall indicate on the] Request for Judicial Intervention (RJI) [the appropriate Nature of Action or Proceeding category and shall] that attaches a completed Commercial Division RJI Addendum certifying that the case meets the jurisdictional requirements for Commercial Division assignment set forth in subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of this section. Except as provided in subdivision (e) below, failure to file an RJI pursuant to this subdivision precludes a party from seeking assignment of the case to the Commercial Division.

(e) Transfer into the Commercial Division

If an RJI is filed within the 90-day period following service of the complaint and the [a] case is assigned to a noncommercial part because the filing party did not designate the case as "commercial" on the RJI, any other party may apply by letter application (with a copy to all parties) to the Administrative Judge, within ten days after receipt of a copy of the RJI, for a transfer of the case into the Commercial Division. Further, notwithstanding the time periods set forth in subdivisions (d) and (e) of this section, for good cause shown for the delay a party may seek the transfer of a case to the Commercial Division by letter application (with a copy to all parties) to the Administrative Judge. In addition, a non-Commercial Division justice to whom a case is assigned may sua sponte request the Administrative Judge to transfer a case that meets the jurisdictional requirements for Commercial Division assignment set forth in subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of this section to the Commercial Division. The determinations of the Administrative Judge with respect to any letter applications or requests under this subdivision shall be final and subject to no further administrative review or appeal.

Pursuant to the authority vested in me, and with the advice and consent of the Administrative Board of the Courts, I hereby adopt, effective September 2, 2014, Rule 11-b of section 202.70(g) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme and County Courts (Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division), to read as follows:

(1) The preference in the Commercial Division is for the parties to use categorical designations, where appropriate, to reduce the time and costs associated with preparing privilege logs. The parties are expected to address such considerations in good faith as part of the meet and confer process (see paragraph (a) above) and to agree, where possible, to employ a categorical approach to privilege designations. The parties are encouraged to utilize any reasoned method of organizing the documents that will facilitate an orderly assessment as to the appropriateness of withholding documents in the specified category. For each category of documents that may be established, the producing party shall provide a certification, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1a, setting forth with specificity those facts supporting the privileged or protected status of the information included within the category. The certification shall also describe the steps taken to identify the documents so categorized, including but not limited to whether each document was reviewed or some form of sampling was employed, and if the latter, how the sampling was conducted. The certification shall be signed by the Responsible Attorney, as defined below, or by the party, through an authorized and knowledgeable representative.

(2) In the event the requesting party refuses to permit a categorical approach, and instead insists on a document-by-document listing on the privilege log, then unless the Court deems it appropriate to issue a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 based upon the facts and circumstances before it, the requirements set forth in CPLR 3122 shall be followed. In that circumstance, however, the producing party, upon a showing of good cause, may apply to the court for the allocation of costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred with respect to preparing the document-by-document log. Upon good cause shown, the court may allocate the costs to the requesting party.

(3) To the extent that a party insists upon a document-by-document privilege log as contemplated by CPLR 3122, and absent an order to the contrary, each uninterrupted e-mail chain shall constitute a single entry, and the description accompanying the entry shall include the following: (i) an indication that the e-mails represent an uninterrupted dialogue; (ii) the beginning and ending dates and times (as noted on the e-mails) of the dialogue; (iii) the number of e-mails within the dialogue; and (iv) the names of all authors and recipients – together with sufficient identifying information about each person (e.g., name of employer, job title, role in the case) to allow for a considered assessment of privilege issues.