The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos: Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 381-397 Affirmation (Affidavit) in Opposition and Exhibits Annexed 422-425; 444-445 DECISION AND ORDER Defendant, The City of New York (City), moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR 2221, granting renewal of the plaintiff’s motion and, upon renewal, vacating the rulings in this court’s order dated March 8, 2021 (March 2021 Order), compelling the City to produce discovery enumerated in plaintiffs demand dated June 25, 2018 and denying entirely plaintiffs motion to strike the City’s answer, or, in the alternative, extending the City’s time to comply with the March 2021 Order pursuant to CPLR 2004. Background and Procedural History Plaintiff Ronald Hyman (plaintiff) commenced this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained when he was caused to fall over a raised brick in front of the premises known as 1-9 Flatbush Avenue a/k/a 556 Fulton Street in Brooklyn, New York. The incident occurred on October 17, 2011. On or about February 10, 2012, plaintiff commenced this action against defendants SOUNDVIEW CHICKEN, INC. (hereinafter Soundview), KANSAS FRIED CHICKEN, INC., (hereinafter Kansas) and the City. On or about April 10, 2013, Soundview and Kansas served a Third-Party Summons & Verified Complaint on DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN PARTNERSHIP, INC. (hereinafter DBP). On or about April 30, 2013, plaintiff served DBP with a Supplemental Summons & Amended Verified Complaint. All defendants and third-party defendants timely interposed answers. After initial discovery revealed the existence of additional potentially responsible parties, plaintiff commenced a separate suit against FB BURGERS LLC d/b/a FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES (hereinafter FB Burgers), BR BURGERS CORP., BR BURGERS MERGER LLC, BR BURGERS LLC and COHOFF, LLC under Kings County Supreme Court Index #503223/2014 (hereinafter Second Action). On or about July 9, 2014, FB Burgers served its Answer in the Second Action. Defendants BR BURGERS CORP., BR BURGERS MERGER LLC, BR BURGERS LLC and COHOFF, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Defaulting Defendants) failed to answer and, on August 14, 2014, a default judgment was granted against them. On the same date, the court consolidated the Second Action with the instant action under Index #500254/2012. By order dated August 7, 2015, summary judgment was granted to FB Burgers, Soundview and Kansas. On June 25, 2018, plaintiff served a Notice for Discovery & Inspection (June 2018 D&I) seeking, among other things, correspondence between the City and each of the following entities: Soundview, Kansas, FB Burgers, and the Defaulting Defendants. Upon a motion filed by plaintiff to strike the City’s answer for its failure to provide discovery, by short-form order dated March 13, 2019, the court directed the City to respond to plaintiffs June 2018 D&I “within 60 days” (see NYSCEF Doc No, 300). The City having failed to comply with said order, plaintiff moved again to strike the City’s answer. By short form order dated October 23, 2019, the court declined to strike the City’s answer but directed the City to “search for and provide documents as specifically requested in plaintiffs Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated 6/25/18 including but not limited to contracts, proposals, agreements, correspondence from 2005 to 2011 (DOA) and will provide records w/in 90 days” (NYSCEF Doc No. 334). The City, again, failed to comply. Plaintiff thereafter filed another motion to strike the City’s answer. This motion resulted in the March 2021 Order which declined to strike the City’s answer, but ordered the City to: “[N]o later than May 7, 2021, provide a further supplemental response to plaintiffs demand dated June 25, 2018. The further supplemental response shall be itemized according to the demand. Any objection that the City has previously asserted in response to the demand dated June 25, 2018, relating to privilege, overbreadth, burden or relevance, is overruled. If an itemized response indicates that documents responsive to the demand have not been found, the response shall include an affidavit (so-called Jackson) of a record keeper who avers to their position and experience as a record keeper, where searches were done, and where such documents are usually kept. The City is precluded from offering testimony or introducing evidence at trial unless the above is timely complied with” (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 379, 385). Now, with the instant motion, the City moves to renew and upon renewal, seeks, in essence, to vacate the March 2021 order. The City argues now, via a motion filed on May 7, 2021, that the discovery sought in plaintiffs June 2018 D&I would not further any cause of action against the City because the only remaining defendants in this case are the City and DBP. Thus, that only discovery pertaining to the City and DBP would be relevant. The City states that it failed to mention this argument previously because it did not anticipate, “at this stage in ligation” and “considering the remaining causes of action,” that the court would order the City to turn over records that do not bear on the City’s liability (see NYSCEF Doc No. 382,
