Preview
Law Offices of Karl J. Stoecker
22 Jericho Turnpike, Suite I 00 West
Mineola, New York 11501
Phone: (212) 818-0080
kjs@kjslawfirm.com
September 21, 2022
VIA E-MAIL AND ECF
Hon. Sharon M.J. Gianelli
100 Supreme Court Drive
Mineola, NY 11501
IAS – Part 8
Re: Stanson Automated LLC et al. v. Sherhan.
Index No. 614855/2021 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County) (Gianelli, J.)
Dear Judge Gianelli:
Defendant/third-party plaintiff Abdulla Sherhan (“Sherhan”), by his
attorney, Karl J. Stoecker, respectfully submits this letter motion to outline the parties’
outstanding discovery disputes and to seek a protective order in connection with certain
of plaintiffs’ discovery requests in accordance with the instructions set forth in Your
Honor’s September 6, 2022 order.
Factual Background
The parties herein worked together in the ATM business for more than 18
years. Their relationship commenced in 2003 when plaintiff Stanlou, which supplies
merchandise to convenience stores, hired Sherhan. At the time of his engagement by
Stanlou, Sherhan was in the business of supplying ATM’s to such stores and over the
course of many years had developed a large and loyal customer base among his fellow
Yemeni immigrants.
When Sherhan commenced employment with Stanlou, defendant Joel
Iskowitz (“Iskowitz”) proposed a partnership whereby Iskowitz would contribute capital
to expand Sherhan’s ATM business and they would create a limited liability corporation
– plaintiff Stanson Automated, LLC (“Stanson”) – as a vehicle for the business. Verified
Answer, Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Answer and Counterclaims”) §§
110-114. In consideration of the capital Iskowitz would be contributing to the venture,
Sherhan agreed to accept, among other things,10 percent of the income generated by the
business.
During the course of their partnership Sherhan successfully recruited
several hundred of his contacts to sign ten-year ATM agreements with Stanson. Iskowitz
however, routinely short-changed Sherhan and failed to give him the agreed-to share of
1
Stanson’s income. When Sherhan complained, Iskowitz would string him along with
lump-sum payments in partial satisfaction of the amounts owed, each time falsely
promising to promptly pay the arrears. Answer and Counterclaims §§ 117-121.
The relationship ended in 2021, when Iskowitz purported to sell his
interest in the ATM business to third-party defendant Ehab (“Michael”) Rabah, thereby
effectively attempting to divesting Sherhan of, among other things, his contractual rights
to a percentage of the proceeds generated by the ATMs for the unexpired portions of the
then-outstanding ten year contracts Sherhan had secured.
Plaintiffs then immediately commenced this action seeking payment of
$100,000 allegedly due under sham contracts and a promissory note that Sherhan is
alleged to have assented to in connection with a real estate transaction, arranged by
plaintiff Joel Iskowitz and his attorneys, for the purchase of Sherhan’s family home. At
two closings which occurred in connection with that purchase, Iskowitz, unbeknownst to
Sherhan, caused the latter to sign documents, which had nothing to do with the real estate
closing at hand, and instead purported to transform Sherhan from a partner to an
employee of Stanson and further purported to impose a host of onerous obligations on
him to which he had never agreed, for which there was no valid consideration, and which
are, in any event, unconscionable, against public policy and unenforceable . Answer and
Counterclaims §§ 125-146.
The Instant Discovery Disputes
Plaintiffs’ Refusal to Produce
Documents Identifying their Owners
Plaintiffs dispute Sherhan’s entitlement to the following discovery. First,
they have declined to provide any documents “regarding the ownership and respective
ownership interests” in Stanson and Stanlou, effectively depriving Sherhan of even the
basic foundational knowledge of who is purportedly suing him in this action. See
plaintiffs response to Sherhan’s document request No. 1. A copy of the foregoing
responses are annexed hereto. To the extent plaintiffs have a valid concern regarding
confidentiality, and the proprietary nature of such information, that can easily be
addressed in a confidentiality agreement and Sherhan respectfully requests that they be
ordered to produce such documents.
Plaintiff’s Refusal to Produce Documents
Regarding Stanson’s Customers and Income Due to Sherhan
Second, plaintiffs have declined to produce documents “reflecting
Stanson’s current or former customers, including without limitation, customer lists,
monies received from each, amounts billed to each and all tax filings reflecting the
foregoing from 2005 to the present.” See Response to document request No. 2. The
importance of such documents for Sherhan’s proof of damages in this action cannot be
2
gainsaid.1 Whether or not the Court or a jury ultimately finds that the Employment
Agreement, First Amendment thereto and Promissory Note are valid and enforceable, has
no effect on Sherhan’s entitlement to 10 percent of the revenues generated by ATM
agreements he secured given that the Employment Agreement, at paragraph 4(b) thereof,
recognizes that entitlement. It is impossible for Sherhan cannot do a complete damage
calculation without information regarding transaction fees generated by each ATM he
placed.
The 2005 cut-off date was chosen for document request No 2 , and for
requests 8-9 and 18-19, 21, because, as we understand it, plaintiffs contend that Stanson
had ATM customers other than those generated by Sherhan and may seek to exclude
from Sherhan’s damages, customers which they contend Sherhan did not secure and/or
with which Stanson had a pre-existing relationship independent of Sherhan. In addition,
particularly with respect to request Nos. 18-19, payments made to Sherhan will evidence
a long-term course of conduct between the parties which corroborates Sherhan’s
allegations regarding the parties’ agreement with respect to the allocation of income
generated by their partnership.
Finally, plaintiffs’ characterization of the parties’ relationship in tax
returns (Document Request No. 21) over a long period of time is indicative of their actual
relationship. Although plaintiffs now seek to characterize that relationship as
employer/employee in keeping with the sham contracts they have proffered to the Court,
they continued to characterize Sherhan’s relationship with Stanson’s as one of
independent contractor in sworn filings submitted to the Internal Revenue Service after
the foregoing contracts were allegedly entered into, just as they had for many years prior
to those alleged contracts, and notwithstanding that the nature of their relationship never
changed during the course of the 18 year period in which they did business with Sherhan.
Plaintiff’s Refusal to Produce Documents Regarding
their Purported Sale of Stanson’s ATM Business
Third, plaintiffs have declined to produce any documents regarding the
sale or potential sale of Stanson’s ATM business, including documents furnished to any
potential purchaser regarding the business. Response to Request No. 3. Certainly
Sherhan is entitled to information regarding the purported sale of the business which is
the subject matter of this action and of which he was a partner. Particularly given that,
irrespective of that characterization of his legal relationship with Stanson, he has an
undeniable right to, among other things, 10 percent of the transaction fees generated by
the ATM’s he placed for the business, for the unexpired terms of the 10 year contracts he
secured. See, e.g., Employment Agreement, at paragraph 4(b).
1
Document Request No. 20 similarly seeks documents relating to monies generated by Stanson’s ATM’s
which is obviously necessary to perform the accounting Sherhan seeks, and to calculate damages. Plaintiffs,
however, decline to response to this request “since it is unintelligible.”
Although the request is clear on its face, the
objection is presumably based on a typographical error whereby Stanson is misspelled as “Stanton.” This objection
is baseless as it is quite apparent that “Stanton” is a reference to Stanson, but for the typo.
3
The representations, moreover, plaintiffs made to potential purchasers of
the business regarding its value, sales, income and expenses are highly relevant to
Sherhan’s damages, especially to the extent they may diverge from representations
previously made to Sherhan regarding amounts due to him from the business.
Plaintiff’s Refusal to Produce Documents
Regarding the Real Estate Transaction which
is the Underlying basis for their Claim in this Action
Fourth, as set forth in the Complaint, Sherhan’s purchase of his family
home from Iskowitz - allegedly at $150,000 less than its market value - in a transaction
arranged by plaintiff Iskowitz, is the underlying basis for plaintiffs’ alleged contractual
claim for $100,000. See First Amendment to Employment Agreement at page 1 (fourth
Whereas Clause). Document Request No. 13 seeks documents relating to that
transaction. Specifically, those relating to paragraph 31 of the Complaint where plaintiffs
allege that “[w]hen Iskowitz initially purchased the property, Iskowitz paid related costs
and expenses, including applicable taxes, title insurance, and other closing costs, for
which he has never been reimbursed.”
Plaintiffs object to this request contending that their own allegations are
irrelevant. Sherhan denies these allegations and contends that they are provably false.
Verified Answer Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Answer”) §§ 31, 137.
Accordingly, even apart from any bearing such documents have on the real estate
transaction at issue and any debt Sherhan owes to plaintiffs, such a provably false
statement in a Verified Complaint is relevant to plaintiff Iskowitz’ credibility and, as
such, is discoverable for that reason alone.
Sherhan’s Interrogatory Responses
As set forth in paragraphs 149-152 of Sherhan’s Answer, plaintiffs
wrongfully converted Sherhan’s documents relating to Stanson’s ATM business when
they endeavored to shut him out of the business completely in November of 2021and
have since repeatedly refused to return them. Stanson had over 200 ATM customers each
of which was secured by Sherhan. It is unreasonable and unduly onerous to require
Sherhan to attempt to recall from memory the name and address of each customer when
that information is already in plaintiffs’ possession and requires no effort to produce.
The customers are those with knowledge of relevant facts (Interrogatory No 1) and those
are in possession of relevant documents (Interrogatory No. 3).
In sum, requiring plaintiff to piece together a list of over 200 customers in a
vacuum, from memory, would only create confusion given that the customers were, in
many cases, known to Sherhan by their nicknames, or Americanized variants of their
actual legal Arabic names and Sherhan was not generally familiar with the names of the
formal business entities they may have utilized.
4
With respect to Interrogatory No. 2, a “detailed” accounting of damages without
defendants return of the documents they misappropriated from Sherhan, or an accounting
of the revenue generated by each ATM is impossible. The methodology for Sherhan’s
damage calculation is simple: it consists of the 10 percent share of the revenue plaintiff
Iskowitz promised to pay Sherhan when they went into business together. Sherhan
alleges that his damages are in excess of 1 million dollars because the most recent 1099
Stanson provided to Sherhan reflects that Stanson paid him $239,011.00 in 2020. That
amount consists principally of Sherhan’s 10 percent share of ATM transaction fees – the
amount which even plaintiffs concede was contractually due to Sherhan. See
Employment Agreement § 4(b). Assuming, arguendo, that there was an average of 5
years remaining on the outstanding 10 year contracts Sherhan secured for Stanson, his
damages would easily pass the $1 million mark. Plaintiff cannot give a detailed
accounting of damages, however, because the information required to do so is in
plaintiffs’ custody and they have declined to provide it.
During the meet and confer I requested a copy of Stanson’s customer list
to enable Sherhan to provide responses to the Interrogatories, but they refused to provide
it. Accordingly, Sherhan seeks a protective order which permits him to defer
interrogatory responses until plaintiffs furnish Stanson’s customer list and produce
documents regarding the revenue generated by ATMs he placed.
Sherhan’s Document Responses
Plaintiffs propounded 148 document requests in this action. They submit
that requests 9-57 seek documents regarding Sherhan’s alleged solicitation of “Stanson’s
clients.“ (sic) Each of these requests contain an ambiguity which renders them incapable
of a response given that Stanson’s clients were Sherhan’s clients and Sherhan was, and
remains, affiliated with Stanson.
To take one example, plaintiffs’ document request no. 9 seeks
communications and correspondence between Sherhan “and any customer of Stanson
and/or Stanlou related to that customer doing business with Sherhan [and any] Affiliated
Entity.“ Such requests require production of all communications between Sherhan and
potential Stanson customers regardless of whether Sherhan’s legal relationship to Stanson
is characterized as partner, independent contractor or employee. There is no distinction
between Sherhan and Stanson in this context given Sherhan’s ongoing “affiliation” with
Stanson. In fact, Iskowitz insisted that Sherhan at all times act as if Stanson was
Sherhan’s company, and his alone. He instructed Sherhan to sign each ATM agreement
on Stanson’s behalf so that customers would perceive that they were doing business
solely with him given his longstanding relationship of trust and confidence with his
fellow Yemeni immigrants who were reluctant to do business with outsiders.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl J. Stoecker
5
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU
------------------------------------------------------------------X
STANSON AUTOMATED, LLC, STANLOU Index No. 614855/2021
TOBACCO INC., and JOEL ISKOWITZ, (Giannelli, J.)
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM
-against- DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST
ABDULLA SHERHAN, FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff/
Third-Party Plaintiff,
-against-
STEWART ISKOWITZ, MICHAEL RABAH,
Third-Party Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Stanson Automated LLC, Stanlou Tobacco Inc., and
Joel Iskowitz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Third-Party Defendants Stewart Iskowitz and
Michael Rabah (collectively, “Third-Party Defendants”), by and through their undersigned
counsel, Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP, hereby respond and object to
the first request for the production of documents (the “Requests”) served by
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff Abdulla Sherhan (“Sherhan”).
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they call
for the disclosure of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-
product privilege and other privileges.
2. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they call
for the disclosure of documents and information prepared in anticipation of litigation and/or trial
preparation material.
1
3. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek
documents and information not relevant to the issues raised in this lawsuit and are not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they are
vague, overly broad, unintelligible and/or unduly burdensome.
5. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they are
oppressive and it is impossible to respond to the Requests in a reasonable manner or amount of
time.
6. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek
documents and information already in Sherhan’s knowledge, possession and/or control.
7. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek
disclosure of opinions, mental impressions, conclusions or legal theories of Plaintiffs and/or
Third-Party Defendants, or their counsel or representatives.
8. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek
disclosure of confidential and sensitive financial information.
9. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they are
duplicative of one another.
10. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they
purport to require Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants to locate or identify documents and
information that are not in their possession, custody or control.
11. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants, by producing any documents or information,
does not waive their right to object to the introduction as evidence of any such documents or
information at the trial of this action.
2
12. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants reserve their right to redact irrelevant,
confidential or privileged information in any document produced by Plaintiffs and Third-Party
Defendants.
13. The inadvertent or unintentional disclosure of any document or the production of
an unredacted document shall not be deemed a waiver of Plaintiffs’ and Third-Party Defendants’
objection to the production of said document, part thereof or the information contained therein
and said document shall be returned upon demand.
14. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Plaintiffs and Third-Party
Defendants with respect to the admissibility or relevance of any fact or document, or of the truth
or accuracy of any characterization or document of any kind.
15. These responses are based upon documents and information available at the present
time from the files of Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants, and Plaintiffs and Third-Party
Defendants are still in the process of looking for any other responsive documents and/or
information. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants reserve the right to supplement, amend or
correct these responses.
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS
Request No. 1
All documents regarding the ownership and respective ownership interests in Stanson Automated, LLC
(“Stanson”), Stanlou Tobacco Inc. (“Stanlou”) from 2005 to the present.
Response to Request No. 1
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents
and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action.
Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants also object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of
documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs and
Third-Party Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of
trade secrets and/or business information that is confidential, proprietary and/or otherwise
protected.
Request No. 2
All documents reflecting Stanson’s current or former customers, including, without limitation, customer
3
lists, monies received from each, amounts billed to each and all tax filings reflecting the foregoing from
2005 to the present.
Response to Request No. 2
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents
and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action.
Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants also object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of
documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs and
Third-Party Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of
trade secrets and/or business information that is confidential, proprietary and/or otherwise
protected.
Request No. 3
All documents relating to the sale, or potential sale of Stanson’s automated teller machine (“ATM”)
business, or any portion thereof, including, without limitation, any documents furnished to any purchaser
or potential purchaser regarding Stanson’s employees, independent contractors, business, customers,
sales, income and expenses.
Response to Request No. 3
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents
and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action.
Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that itseeks
production of trade secrets and/or business information that is confidential, proprietary and/or
otherwise protected.
Request No. 4
All documents that relate to money Stanlou loaned to defendant Sherhan.
Response to Request No. 4
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and
non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 5
All documents that relate to money plaintiff Joel Iskowitz and his wife gave Sherhan to assist
with his expenses and tax payments.
Response to Request No. 5
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 6
All documents that reflect plaintiff Joel Iskowitz’ status as a “managing member” of Stanson as
that term is used in paragraph 15 of the Complaint in this action.
Response to Request No. 6
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
4
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 7
All documents that relate to the “Employment Agreement” alleged in paragraph 14 of the
Complaint, including, without limitation, its drafting, negotiation, execution and any
correspondence relating thereto.
Response to Request No. 7
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 8
All documents reflecting accounts secured or renewed by Sherhan during the course of his
relationship with plaintiffs and third-party defendants.
Response to Request No. 8
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond
the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver
thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged
documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period
prior to the commencement of this action.
Request No. 9
All documents reflecting loans and/or sign-on bonuses furnished to ATM customers with
accounts secured or renewed by Sherhan.
Response to Request No. 9
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond
the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver
thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged
documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period
prior to the commencement of this action.
Request No. 10
All documents that specify or relate to the “additional compensation” paid to Plaintiff referenced
in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
Response to Request No. 10
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 11
All documents that reflect or relate to the conduct alleged in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the
Complaint.
5
Response to Request No. 11
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 12
All documents that relate to the Contract of Sale referenced in paragraph 30 of the Complaint,
including, without limitation, its drafting, negotiation, execution and any correspondence relating
thereto.
Response to Request No. 12
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 13
All documents that reflect or relate to plaintiff Joel Iskowitz’ payment of costs and expenses,
including taxes, title insurance and other closing costs referenced in paragraph 31 of the
Complaint.
Response to Request No. 13
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents
and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action.
Request No. 14
All documents relating to the “First Amendment to Employment Agreement” referenced in
paragraph 32 of the Complaint, including, without limitation, its drafting, negotiation, execution
and any correspondence relating thereto.
Response to Request No. 14
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 15
A copy of the “promissory note” referred to in paragraph 38 of the Complaint and all documents
that reflect or relate to its drafting, negotiation, execution and any correspondence relating
thereto.
Response to Request No. 15
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 16
All documents that relate to the conduct alleged in paragraph 41 and 42 of the Complaint.
Response to Request No. 16
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
6
Request No. 17
All documents reflecting monies received by defendants from, and business secured by, Sherhan
from Stanlou’s customers for merchandise, including, without limitation, cigarettes, candy,
groceries and over the counter medicine.
Response to Request No. 17
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request because it is unintelligible.
Request No. 18
All documents relating to compensation paid to Sherhan by plaintiffs or third-party defendant
Stewart Iskowitz, or any entity owned or controlled by the foregoing, or any of them, in respect
of employment, contractual or other services, or for any other purpose, including, without
limitation, all tax filings relating to the foregoing.
Response to Request No. 18
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond
the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver
thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged
documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period
prior to the commencement of this action.
Request No. 19
Copies of the monthly reports which detail how Sherhan’s commission were calculated and paid
which are referenced in paragraph 56 of the Complaint and all of the underlying documents used
in connection with the preparation of the foregoing monthly reports or which setting forth data
purportedly contained in the foregoing monthly reports.
Response to Request No. 19
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond
the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver
thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged
documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period
prior to the commencement of this action.
Request No. 20
All documents regarding cash withdrawals from Stanton’s (sic) ATM’s or which otherwise
reflect or relate to monies generated by ATM’s at Stanton’s (sic) customers.
Response to Request No. 20
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants further object to this
Request since it is unintelligible.
Request No. 21
Copies of all 1099 or other tax forms plaintiffs or third- party defendants, or any of them,
7
furnished to Sherhan.
Response to Request No. 21
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond
the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver
thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged
documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period
prior to the commencement of this action.
Request No. 22
Copies of all documents contained in personnel or similar files maintained by plaintiffs or third
party-defendant Stewart Iskowitz, or any of them, and any other documents that relate to
Sherhan’s performance compensation, insurance or other benefits.
Response to Request No. 22
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 23
Copies of all correspondence relating to Sherhan.
Response to Request No. 23
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents
and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action.
Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party
Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged correspondence relating to Sherhan in
their possession in their possession that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
Request No. 24
Copies of all documents plaintiffs and third-party defendants contend support any allegation
contained within the Complaint or their affirmative defenses or their denial of any claims
asserted against them in this action.
Response to Request No. 24
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Request No. 25
Copies of all documents which relate in any manner to Sherhan.
Response to Request No. 25
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this
Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents
and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action.
Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party
8
Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents related to Sherhan in their
possession in their possession that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
Request No. 26
All documents, to the extent not already produced in response to these Document Requests
which plaintiffs and third-party defendants may seek to introduce in evidence at the trial of this
action.
Response to Request No. 26
Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request as premature. Plaintiffs and Third-
Party Defendants will identify and exchange trial exhibits when they are required to do so by the
CPLR, the Commercial Division Rules, and the Court’s rules and/or orders.
Request No. 27
All documents relating to Sherhan’s damages, including any documents that plaintiffs and third-
party defendants contend support the contention that Sherhan is not entitled to all or part of the
damages he has claimed in this action.
Response to Request No. 27
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all
relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request.
Dated: Uniondale, New York
July 6, 2022
WESTERMAN BALL EDERER
MILLER ZUCKER & SHARFSTEIN, LLP
Michael J. Gelfand
By: ___________________________________
Greg S. Zucker, Esq.
Michael J. Gelfand, Esq.
1201 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, New York 11556
(516) 622-9200
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
Defendants
2589097
9
Preview
Law Offices of Karl J. Stoecker 22 Jericho Turnpike, Suite I 00 West Mineola, New York 11501 Phone: (212) 818-0080 kjs@kjslawfirm.com September 21, 2022 VIA E-MAIL AND ECF Hon. Sharon M.J. Gianelli 100 Supreme Court Drive Mineola, NY 11501 IAS – Part 8 Re: Stanson Automated LLC et al. v. Sherhan. Index No. 614855/2021 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County) (Gianelli, J.) Dear Judge Gianelli: Defendant/third-party plaintiff Abdulla Sherhan (“Sherhan”), by his attorney, Karl J. Stoecker, respectfully submits this letter motion to outline the parties’ outstanding discovery disputes and to seek a protective order in connection with certain of plaintiffs’ discovery requests in accordance with the instructions set forth in Your Honor’s September 6, 2022 order. Factual Background The parties herein worked together in the ATM business for more than 18 years. Their relationship commenced in 2003 when plaintiff Stanlou, which supplies merchandise to convenience stores, hired Sherhan. At the time of his engagement by Stanlou, Sherhan was in the business of supplying ATM’s to such stores and over the course of many years had developed a large and loyal customer base among his fellow Yemeni immigrants. When Sherhan commenced employment with Stanlou, defendant Joel Iskowitz (“Iskowitz”) proposed a partnership whereby Iskowitz would contribute capital to expand Sherhan’s ATM business and they would create a limited liability corporation – plaintiff Stanson Automated, LLC (“Stanson”) – as a vehicle for the business. Verified Answer, Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Answer and Counterclaims”) §§ 110-114. In consideration of the capital Iskowitz would be contributing to the venture, Sherhan agreed to accept, among other things,10 percent of the income generated by the business. During the course of their partnership Sherhan successfully recruited several hundred of his contacts to sign ten-year ATM agreements with Stanson. Iskowitz however, routinely short-changed Sherhan and failed to give him the agreed-to share of 1 Stanson’s income. When Sherhan complained, Iskowitz would string him along with lump-sum payments in partial satisfaction of the amounts owed, each time falsely promising to promptly pay the arrears. Answer and Counterclaims §§ 117-121. The relationship ended in 2021, when Iskowitz purported to sell his interest in the ATM business to third-party defendant Ehab (“Michael”) Rabah, thereby effectively attempting to divesting Sherhan of, among other things, his contractual rights to a percentage of the proceeds generated by the ATMs for the unexpired portions of the then-outstanding ten year contracts Sherhan had secured. Plaintiffs then immediately commenced this action seeking payment of $100,000 allegedly due under sham contracts and a promissory note that Sherhan is alleged to have assented to in connection with a real estate transaction, arranged by plaintiff Joel Iskowitz and his attorneys, for the purchase of Sherhan’s family home. At two closings which occurred in connection with that purchase, Iskowitz, unbeknownst to Sherhan, caused the latter to sign documents, which had nothing to do with the real estate closing at hand, and instead purported to transform Sherhan from a partner to an employee of Stanson and further purported to impose a host of onerous obligations on him to which he had never agreed, for which there was no valid consideration, and which are, in any event, unconscionable, against public policy and unenforceable . Answer and Counterclaims §§ 125-146. The Instant Discovery Disputes Plaintiffs’ Refusal to Produce Documents Identifying their Owners Plaintiffs dispute Sherhan’s entitlement to the following discovery. First, they have declined to provide any documents “regarding the ownership and respective ownership interests” in Stanson and Stanlou, effectively depriving Sherhan of even the basic foundational knowledge of who is purportedly suing him in this action. See plaintiffs response to Sherhan’s document request No. 1. A copy of the foregoing responses are annexed hereto. To the extent plaintiffs have a valid concern regarding confidentiality, and the proprietary nature of such information, that can easily be addressed in a confidentiality agreement and Sherhan respectfully requests that they be ordered to produce such documents. Plaintiff’s Refusal to Produce Documents Regarding Stanson’s Customers and Income Due to Sherhan Second, plaintiffs have declined to produce documents “reflecting Stanson’s current or former customers, including without limitation, customer lists, monies received from each, amounts billed to each and all tax filings reflecting the foregoing from 2005 to the present.” See Response to document request No. 2. The importance of such documents for Sherhan’s proof of damages in this action cannot be 2 gainsaid.1 Whether or not the Court or a jury ultimately finds that the Employment Agreement, First Amendment thereto and Promissory Note are valid and enforceable, has no effect on Sherhan’s entitlement to 10 percent of the revenues generated by ATM agreements he secured given that the Employment Agreement, at paragraph 4(b) thereof, recognizes that entitlement. It is impossible for Sherhan cannot do a complete damage calculation without information regarding transaction fees generated by each ATM he placed. The 2005 cut-off date was chosen for document request No 2 , and for requests 8-9 and 18-19, 21, because, as we understand it, plaintiffs contend that Stanson had ATM customers other than those generated by Sherhan and may seek to exclude from Sherhan’s damages, customers which they contend Sherhan did not secure and/or with which Stanson had a pre-existing relationship independent of Sherhan. In addition, particularly with respect to request Nos. 18-19, payments made to Sherhan will evidence a long-term course of conduct between the parties which corroborates Sherhan’s allegations regarding the parties’ agreement with respect to the allocation of income generated by their partnership. Finally, plaintiffs’ characterization of the parties’ relationship in tax returns (Document Request No. 21) over a long period of time is indicative of their actual relationship. Although plaintiffs now seek to characterize that relationship as employer/employee in keeping with the sham contracts they have proffered to the Court, they continued to characterize Sherhan’s relationship with Stanson’s as one of independent contractor in sworn filings submitted to the Internal Revenue Service after the foregoing contracts were allegedly entered into, just as they had for many years prior to those alleged contracts, and notwithstanding that the nature of their relationship never changed during the course of the 18 year period in which they did business with Sherhan. Plaintiff’s Refusal to Produce Documents Regarding their Purported Sale of Stanson’s ATM Business Third, plaintiffs have declined to produce any documents regarding the sale or potential sale of Stanson’s ATM business, including documents furnished to any potential purchaser regarding the business. Response to Request No. 3. Certainly Sherhan is entitled to information regarding the purported sale of the business which is the subject matter of this action and of which he was a partner. Particularly given that, irrespective of that characterization of his legal relationship with Stanson, he has an undeniable right to, among other things, 10 percent of the transaction fees generated by the ATM’s he placed for the business, for the unexpired terms of the 10 year contracts he secured. See, e.g., Employment Agreement, at paragraph 4(b). 1 Document Request No. 20 similarly seeks documents relating to monies generated by Stanson’s ATM’s which is obviously necessary to perform the accounting Sherhan seeks, and to calculate damages. Plaintiffs, however, decline to response to this request “since it is unintelligible.” Although the request is clear on its face, the objection is presumably based on a typographical error whereby Stanson is misspelled as “Stanton.” This objection is baseless as it is quite apparent that “Stanton” is a reference to Stanson, but for the typo. 3 The representations, moreover, plaintiffs made to potential purchasers of the business regarding its value, sales, income and expenses are highly relevant to Sherhan’s damages, especially to the extent they may diverge from representations previously made to Sherhan regarding amounts due to him from the business. Plaintiff’s Refusal to Produce Documents Regarding the Real Estate Transaction which is the Underlying basis for their Claim in this Action Fourth, as set forth in the Complaint, Sherhan’s purchase of his family home from Iskowitz - allegedly at $150,000 less than its market value - in a transaction arranged by plaintiff Iskowitz, is the underlying basis for plaintiffs’ alleged contractual claim for $100,000. See First Amendment to Employment Agreement at page 1 (fourth Whereas Clause). Document Request No. 13 seeks documents relating to that transaction. Specifically, those relating to paragraph 31 of the Complaint where plaintiffs allege that “[w]hen Iskowitz initially purchased the property, Iskowitz paid related costs and expenses, including applicable taxes, title insurance, and other closing costs, for which he has never been reimbursed.” Plaintiffs object to this request contending that their own allegations are irrelevant. Sherhan denies these allegations and contends that they are provably false. Verified Answer Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Answer”) §§ 31, 137. Accordingly, even apart from any bearing such documents have on the real estate transaction at issue and any debt Sherhan owes to plaintiffs, such a provably false statement in a Verified Complaint is relevant to plaintiff Iskowitz’ credibility and, as such, is discoverable for that reason alone. Sherhan’s Interrogatory Responses As set forth in paragraphs 149-152 of Sherhan’s Answer, plaintiffs wrongfully converted Sherhan’s documents relating to Stanson’s ATM business when they endeavored to shut him out of the business completely in November of 2021and have since repeatedly refused to return them. Stanson had over 200 ATM customers each of which was secured by Sherhan. It is unreasonable and unduly onerous to require Sherhan to attempt to recall from memory the name and address of each customer when that information is already in plaintiffs’ possession and requires no effort to produce. The customers are those with knowledge of relevant facts (Interrogatory No 1) and those are in possession of relevant documents (Interrogatory No. 3). In sum, requiring plaintiff to piece together a list of over 200 customers in a vacuum, from memory, would only create confusion given that the customers were, in many cases, known to Sherhan by their nicknames, or Americanized variants of their actual legal Arabic names and Sherhan was not generally familiar with the names of the formal business entities they may have utilized. 4 With respect to Interrogatory No. 2, a “detailed” accounting of damages without defendants return of the documents they misappropriated from Sherhan, or an accounting of the revenue generated by each ATM is impossible. The methodology for Sherhan’s damage calculation is simple: it consists of the 10 percent share of the revenue plaintiff Iskowitz promised to pay Sherhan when they went into business together. Sherhan alleges that his damages are in excess of 1 million dollars because the most recent 1099 Stanson provided to Sherhan reflects that Stanson paid him $239,011.00 in 2020. That amount consists principally of Sherhan’s 10 percent share of ATM transaction fees – the amount which even plaintiffs concede was contractually due to Sherhan. See Employment Agreement § 4(b). Assuming, arguendo, that there was an average of 5 years remaining on the outstanding 10 year contracts Sherhan secured for Stanson, his damages would easily pass the $1 million mark. Plaintiff cannot give a detailed accounting of damages, however, because the information required to do so is in plaintiffs’ custody and they have declined to provide it. During the meet and confer I requested a copy of Stanson’s customer list to enable Sherhan to provide responses to the Interrogatories, but they refused to provide it. Accordingly, Sherhan seeks a protective order which permits him to defer interrogatory responses until plaintiffs furnish Stanson’s customer list and produce documents regarding the revenue generated by ATMs he placed. Sherhan’s Document Responses Plaintiffs propounded 148 document requests in this action. They submit that requests 9-57 seek documents regarding Sherhan’s alleged solicitation of “Stanson’s clients.“ (sic) Each of these requests contain an ambiguity which renders them incapable of a response given that Stanson’s clients were Sherhan’s clients and Sherhan was, and remains, affiliated with Stanson. To take one example, plaintiffs’ document request no. 9 seeks communications and correspondence between Sherhan “and any customer of Stanson and/or Stanlou related to that customer doing business with Sherhan [and any] Affiliated Entity.“ Such requests require production of all communications between Sherhan and potential Stanson customers regardless of whether Sherhan’s legal relationship to Stanson is characterized as partner, independent contractor or employee. There is no distinction between Sherhan and Stanson in this context given Sherhan’s ongoing “affiliation” with Stanson. In fact, Iskowitz insisted that Sherhan at all times act as if Stanson was Sherhan’s company, and his alone. He instructed Sherhan to sign each ATM agreement on Stanson’s behalf so that customers would perceive that they were doing business solely with him given his longstanding relationship of trust and confidence with his fellow Yemeni immigrants who were reluctant to do business with outsiders. Respectfully submitted, Karl J. Stoecker 5 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ------------------------------------------------------------------X STANSON AUTOMATED, LLC, STANLOU Index No. 614855/2021 TOBACCO INC., and JOEL ISKOWITZ, (Giannelli, J.) Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM -against- DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST ABDULLA SHERHAN, FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff/ Third-Party Plaintiff, -against- STEWART ISKOWITZ, MICHAEL RABAH, Third-Party Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Stanson Automated LLC, Stanlou Tobacco Inc., and Joel Iskowitz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Third-Party Defendants Stewart Iskowitz and Michael Rabah (collectively, “Third-Party Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP, hereby respond and object to the first request for the production of documents (the “Requests”) served by Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff Abdulla Sherhan (“Sherhan”). GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they call for the disclosure of documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work- product privilege and other privileges. 2. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they call for the disclosure of documents and information prepared in anticipation of litigation and/or trial preparation material. 1 3. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek documents and information not relevant to the issues raised in this lawsuit and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they are vague, overly broad, unintelligible and/or unduly burdensome. 5. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they are oppressive and it is impossible to respond to the Requests in a reasonable manner or amount of time. 6. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek documents and information already in Sherhan’s knowledge, possession and/or control. 7. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek disclosure of opinions, mental impressions, conclusions or legal theories of Plaintiffs and/or Third-Party Defendants, or their counsel or representatives. 8. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek disclosure of confidential and sensitive financial information. 9. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they are duplicative of one another. 10. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they purport to require Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants to locate or identify documents and information that are not in their possession, custody or control. 11. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants, by producing any documents or information, does not waive their right to object to the introduction as evidence of any such documents or information at the trial of this action. 2 12. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants reserve their right to redact irrelevant, confidential or privileged information in any document produced by Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants. 13. The inadvertent or unintentional disclosure of any document or the production of an unredacted document shall not be deemed a waiver of Plaintiffs’ and Third-Party Defendants’ objection to the production of said document, part thereof or the information contained therein and said document shall be returned upon demand. 14. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants with respect to the admissibility or relevance of any fact or document, or of the truth or accuracy of any characterization or document of any kind. 15. These responses are based upon documents and information available at the present time from the files of Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants, and Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants are still in the process of looking for any other responsive documents and/or information. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants reserve the right to supplement, amend or correct these responses. RESPONSES TO REQUESTS Request No. 1 All documents regarding the ownership and respective ownership interests in Stanson Automated, LLC (“Stanson”), Stanlou Tobacco Inc. (“Stanlou”) from 2005 to the present. Response to Request No. 1 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants also object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of trade secrets and/or business information that is confidential, proprietary and/or otherwise protected. Request No. 2 All documents reflecting Stanson’s current or former customers, including, without limitation, customer 3 lists, monies received from each, amounts billed to each and all tax filings reflecting the foregoing from 2005 to the present. Response to Request No. 2 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants also object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of trade secrets and/or business information that is confidential, proprietary and/or otherwise protected. Request No. 3 All documents relating to the sale, or potential sale of Stanson’s automated teller machine (“ATM”) business, or any portion thereof, including, without limitation, any documents furnished to any purchaser or potential purchaser regarding Stanson’s employees, independent contractors, business, customers, sales, income and expenses. Response to Request No. 3 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action. Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that itseeks production of trade secrets and/or business information that is confidential, proprietary and/or otherwise protected. Request No. 4 All documents that relate to money Stanlou loaned to defendant Sherhan. Response to Request No. 4 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 5 All documents that relate to money plaintiff Joel Iskowitz and his wife gave Sherhan to assist with his expenses and tax payments. Response to Request No. 5 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 6 All documents that reflect plaintiff Joel Iskowitz’ status as a “managing member” of Stanson as that term is used in paragraph 15 of the Complaint in this action. Response to Request No. 6 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all 4 relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 7 All documents that relate to the “Employment Agreement” alleged in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, including, without limitation, its drafting, negotiation, execution and any correspondence relating thereto. Response to Request No. 7 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 8 All documents reflecting accounts secured or renewed by Sherhan during the course of his relationship with plaintiffs and third-party defendants. Response to Request No. 8 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period prior to the commencement of this action. Request No. 9 All documents reflecting loans and/or sign-on bonuses furnished to ATM customers with accounts secured or renewed by Sherhan. Response to Request No. 9 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period prior to the commencement of this action. Request No. 10 All documents that specify or relate to the “additional compensation” paid to Plaintiff referenced in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. Response to Request No. 10 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 11 All documents that reflect or relate to the conduct alleged in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Complaint. 5 Response to Request No. 11 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 12 All documents that relate to the Contract of Sale referenced in paragraph 30 of the Complaint, including, without limitation, its drafting, negotiation, execution and any correspondence relating thereto. Response to Request No. 12 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 13 All documents that reflect or relate to plaintiff Joel Iskowitz’ payment of costs and expenses, including taxes, title insurance and other closing costs referenced in paragraph 31 of the Complaint. Response to Request No. 13 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action. Request No. 14 All documents relating to the “First Amendment to Employment Agreement” referenced in paragraph 32 of the Complaint, including, without limitation, its drafting, negotiation, execution and any correspondence relating thereto. Response to Request No. 14 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 15 A copy of the “promissory note” referred to in paragraph 38 of the Complaint and all documents that reflect or relate to its drafting, negotiation, execution and any correspondence relating thereto. Response to Request No. 15 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 16 All documents that relate to the conduct alleged in paragraph 41 and 42 of the Complaint. Response to Request No. 16 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. 6 Request No. 17 All documents reflecting monies received by defendants from, and business secured by, Sherhan from Stanlou’s customers for merchandise, including, without limitation, cigarettes, candy, groceries and over the counter medicine. Response to Request No. 17 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request because it is unintelligible. Request No. 18 All documents relating to compensation paid to Sherhan by plaintiffs or third-party defendant Stewart Iskowitz, or any entity owned or controlled by the foregoing, or any of them, in respect of employment, contractual or other services, or for any other purpose, including, without limitation, all tax filings relating to the foregoing. Response to Request No. 18 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period prior to the commencement of this action. Request No. 19 Copies of the monthly reports which detail how Sherhan’s commission were calculated and paid which are referenced in paragraph 56 of the Complaint and all of the underlying documents used in connection with the preparation of the foregoing monthly reports or which setting forth data purportedly contained in the foregoing monthly reports. Response to Request No. 19 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period prior to the commencement of this action. Request No. 20 All documents regarding cash withdrawals from Stanton’s (sic) ATM’s or which otherwise reflect or relate to monies generated by ATM’s at Stanton’s (sic) customers. Response to Request No. 20 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants further object to this Request since it is unintelligible. Request No. 21 Copies of all 1099 or other tax forms plaintiffs or third- party defendants, or any of them, 7 furnished to Sherhan. Response to Request No. 21 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request to the extent that it seeks production of documents and information for a period beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents that are in their possession that are responsive to this Request, for the six-year period prior to the commencement of this action. Request No. 22 Copies of all documents contained in personnel or similar files maintained by plaintiffs or third party-defendant Stewart Iskowitz, or any of them, and any other documents that relate to Sherhan’s performance compensation, insurance or other benefits. Response to Request No. 22 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 23 Copies of all correspondence relating to Sherhan. Response to Request No. 23 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged correspondence relating to Sherhan in their possession in their possession that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Request No. 24 Copies of all documents plaintiffs and third-party defendants contend support any allegation contained within the Complaint or their affirmative defenses or their denial of any claims asserted against them in this action. Response to Request No. 24 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Request No. 25 Copies of all documents which relate in any manner to Sherhan. Response to Request No. 25 In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request because it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks production of documents and information that are irrelevant to the claims, defenses, and counterclaims in this action. Notwithstanding such objections, but without waiver thereof, Plaintiffs and Third-Party 8 Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents related to Sherhan in their possession in their possession that are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Request No. 26 All documents, to the extent not already produced in response to these Document Requests which plaintiffs and third-party defendants may seek to introduce in evidence at the trial of this action. Response to Request No. 26 Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants object to this Request as premature. Plaintiffs and Third- Party Defendants will identify and exchange trial exhibits when they are required to do so by the CPLR, the Commercial Division Rules, and the Court’s rules and/or orders. Request No. 27 All documents relating to Sherhan’s damages, including any documents that plaintiffs and third- party defendants contend support the contention that Sherhan is not entitled to all or part of the damages he has claimed in this action. Response to Request No. 27 Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs and Third-Party Defendants will produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in their possession that are responsive to this Request. Dated: Uniondale, New York July 6, 2022 WESTERMAN BALL EDERER MILLER ZUCKER & SHARFSTEIN, LLP Michael J. Gelfand By: ___________________________________ Greg S. Zucker, Esq. Michael J. Gelfand, Esq. 1201 RXR Plaza Uniondale, New York 11556 (516) 622-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants 2589097 9