Continuing in the turnabout tradition of legal malpractice defense, wherein the defendant attorney takes on the coloration of its previous adversary in order to defeat a "case within a case’ is this matter: Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave., Inc. v Jordan & Hamburg, LLP ; 2008 NY Slip Op 09462
Decided on December 2, 2008   Appellate Division, First Department .  Plaintiff apparently lost the case below, when its attorney failed to produce certain documents in discovery.  What is the defense to a preclusion order?
 

"The record supports the motion court’s conclusion that Lederer failed to establish that its failure to produce certain documents in the underlying action, resulting in the preclusion order, was the result of defendants’ negligence rather than the "intransigence" of plaintiff’s principal. In [*2]any event, Lederer fails to show that it suffered any actual damages as a result of defendants’ conduct (see Postel v Jaffe & Segal, 237 AD2d 127 [1997]"