Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2022
EXHIBIT A
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2022
Adam Wald
From: Craig Riha
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 5:14 PM
To: Adam Wald
Cc: Tim Feil; Loretta Gastwirth; Manny Frade; Kathy Yodice
Subject: RE: Veludi v. Periera
Attachments: Goel Supplemental Discovery Affidavit.pdf
Adam:
I have taken into consideration your concerns and have received a supplemental affidavit from Mr. Goel. See attached. I
again ask you to withdraw your cross motion.
Craig Riha
From: Adam Wald
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 10:34 AM
To: Craig Riha
Cc: Tim Feil ; Loretta Gastwirth ; Manny Frade
; Kathy Yodice
Subject: RE: Veludi v. Periera
Craig,
I hope that you’re well. In calling for Veludi, Goel, and Kumar to provide discovery certifications, Mr. Pereira repeatedly
noted that such certifications were to “detail the discrete steps they have taken to locate” discoverable material.
(NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 72, 73, 129, 147, 148). Mr. Pereira likewise both expanded upon the proper contents of such a
certification, and cited authority speaking to those contents:
Furthermore, defense counsel's “Affirmation of Search” did not indicate whether he was the custodian of
defendant's records, what records were searched, who conducted the search, what the search consisted of, and
the statement was made upon ‘information and belief.’ Accordingly, this statement is devoid of detail and
insufficient.
(Rodriguez v. United Bronx Parents, Inc., 70 A.D.3d 492, 492–93 (1st Dep’t 2010), cited in NYSCEF Doc. No. 73 at ¶ 104);
(see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 129 at ¶ 20 n.4) (“Thus, his [Kumar’s] assertion that he ran a limited number of search terms
on unspecified platforms, yielding an unspecified number of “hits,” from which he “culled” certain documents, is
insufficient.”).
The affidavit you attached to the below email (the “Affidavit”) fails to provide that information, and is therefore
insufficient. Specifically it:
Asserts that Mr. Goel searched his “computer files” but neither specifies the computer files searched, nor the
results of that search;
Asserts that Mr. Goel searched his “personal and Veludi email boxes” but (1) does not attest to the particular
email addresses he’s referencing; (2) does not attest to the fact that those are the only email addresses he
maintains; (3) does not identify the number of “hits” those searches returned; and (4) does not identify the
number of “hits” that Goel and Veludi withheld (whether that be on the basis of responsiveness, privilege, etc.);
and
1
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2022
Omits any discussion of the scope of documents Mr. Goel transmitted to you for review, who conducted a
review of the resulting documents, the criteria applied for responsiveness, etc.
Moreover, assuming the Affidavit is exhaustive, Mr. Goel’s search for discoverable matter is clearly not. First, emails and
computer files are not the full scope of discoverable matter, and documents Mr. Pereira produced demonstrates that
the parties communicated with one another via, among others, text message. Mr. Goel’s failure to search his text
messages with Mr. Pereira, Kumar, Dunbar, and other Veludi custodians is baseless, as Mr. Pereira’s Notices for
Discovery and Inspection (Mr. Pereira’s “DNIs”) specifically called for, inter alia, texts, and defined Veludi as “plaintiff
Veludi Capital Strategies, LLC, its employees, agents, officers, directors, managers, supervisors, attorneys and any other
persons acting under the name or authority of Veludi Capital Strategies, LLC.” (Mr. Pereira’s DNI’s at “Definitions” ¶¶ 2‐
3, 9). To that end, unless Mr. Goel was the only party with Veludi computer files and/or a Veludi email account — which
is very much not the case, inasmuch as Mr. Pereira’s document production contains at least one email Aneesh Kumar
sent from an “@veludi.com” email address (Bates No. PEREIRA_0622) — his having only searched his emails is
insufficient. That is, Mr. Goel is not Veludi’s only custodian, and his emails are not the full extent of ESI within his and
Veludi’s possession, custody, and control.
Further, Mr. Goel’s having only searched for emails “received from or sent to Manny Periera; as well as to or from
Robert Dunbar and Sunil Kumar relating to Manny Periera” is insufficient. It is unclear what Mr. Goel believes to
“relat[e] to Manny Pereira,” and it seems evident that the search criteria identified in the Affidavit necessarily missed
numerous potentially responsive documents relating to the matters at issue in this action, including without limitation,
documents relative to Mr. Goel’s employment with MassMutual, his compensation records, his disciplinary history, and
his termination. In fact, the Affidavit seems to indicate that Mr. Goel never even searched for correspondence between
himself and MassMutual. It is likewise unclear why Mr. Goel believes that searching emails between he, Dunbar, Kumar,
and Mr. Pereira would be sufficient, given that both he and Veludi identified a number of persons as potentially “having
information or knowledge regarding any claim or defense” in this action in response to Mr. Pereira’s Demand for
Witnesses, Admissions, and Statements. Such a limited search is insufficient.
In light of the above, Mr. Pereira will not be withdrawing his Cross‐Motion (NYSCEF Mot. Seq. No. 7). Please confirm
that you will be conducting an exhaustive search for discoverable matter by a date certain, supplement Mr. Goel and
Veludi’s document production, and prepare a detailed certification upon your completion thereof. In the event you
decline to do so and/or would like to discuss this further, please let me know when you are available for a telephonic
meet and confer.
All rights reserved.
Best,
Adam Wald, Esq.
Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP
190 Willis Ave
Mineola, NY 11501
Phone 516-747-0300 Ext. 528
Fax 516-747-0653
www.meltzerlippe.com
New York City Office:
460 Park Avenue – 21st Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone 212-201-1720
2
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2022
From: Craig Riha
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:25 AM
To: Adam Wald
Cc: Tim Feil
Subject: Veludi v. Periera
Dear Adam:
Please see attached. Kindly let me know if you will withdraw your cross‐motion.
Craig Riha, Esq. |Associate | Carmel, Milazzo & Feil LLP
Phone: 212-658-0458; Ext. 1012 |Fax: 646-838-1314
E-mail: criha@cmfllp.com| Bio | LinkedIn |Website: www.cmfllp.com
Long Island Office: 425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 300, Melville, New York 11747
New York City | New Jersey | Long Island | Beverly Hills | Florida
NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is legally privileged and/or confidential information, which is intended only
for use of recipient. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient (or the agent or employee responsible to deliver it
to the intended (recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication by error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete this e-mail from
your system. Nothing in this e-mail should be construed as a legal opinion or tax advice.
Any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) unless otherwise expressly indicated is
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed
herein. This electronic message transmission contains information which is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination or distribution of this communication to other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by calling (516) 747‐0300 or by electronic mail
(info@meltzerlippe.com). Thank you.
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
3
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2022 EXHIBIT A FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2022 Adam Wald From: Craig Riha Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 5:14 PM To: Adam Wald Cc: Tim Feil; Loretta Gastwirth; Manny Frade; Kathy Yodice Subject: RE: Veludi v. Periera Attachments: Goel Supplemental Discovery Affidavit.pdf Adam: I have taken into consideration your concerns and have received a supplemental affidavit from Mr. Goel. See attached. I again ask you to withdraw your cross motion. Craig Riha From: Adam Wald Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 10:34 AM To: Craig Riha Cc: Tim Feil ; Loretta Gastwirth ; Manny Frade ; Kathy Yodice Subject: RE: Veludi v. Periera Craig, I hope that you’re well. In calling for Veludi, Goel, and Kumar to provide discovery certifications, Mr. Pereira repeatedly noted that such certifications were to “detail the discrete steps they have taken to locate” discoverable material. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 72, 73, 129, 147, 148). Mr. Pereira likewise both expanded upon the proper contents of such a certification, and cited authority speaking to those contents: Furthermore, defense counsel's “Affirmation of Search” did not indicate whether he was the custodian of defendant's records, what records were searched, who conducted the search, what the search consisted of, and the statement was made upon ‘information and belief.’ Accordingly, this statement is devoid of detail and insufficient. (Rodriguez v. United Bronx Parents, Inc., 70 A.D.3d 492, 492–93 (1st Dep’t 2010), cited in NYSCEF Doc. No. 73 at ¶ 104); (see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 129 at ¶ 20 n.4) (“Thus, his [Kumar’s] assertion that he ran a limited number of search terms on unspecified platforms, yielding an unspecified number of “hits,” from which he “culled” certain documents, is insufficient.”). The affidavit you attached to the below email (the “Affidavit”) fails to provide that information, and is therefore insufficient. Specifically it: Asserts that Mr. Goel searched his “computer files” but neither specifies the computer files searched, nor the results of that search; Asserts that Mr. Goel searched his “personal and Veludi email boxes” but (1) does not attest to the particular email addresses he’s referencing; (2) does not attest to the fact that those are the only email addresses he maintains; (3) does not identify the number of “hits” those searches returned; and (4) does not identify the number of “hits” that Goel and Veludi withheld (whether that be on the basis of responsiveness, privilege, etc.); and 1 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2022 Omits any discussion of the scope of documents Mr. Goel transmitted to you for review, who conducted a review of the resulting documents, the criteria applied for responsiveness, etc. Moreover, assuming the Affidavit is exhaustive, Mr. Goel’s search for discoverable matter is clearly not. First, emails and computer files are not the full scope of discoverable matter, and documents Mr. Pereira produced demonstrates that the parties communicated with one another via, among others, text message. Mr. Goel’s failure to search his text messages with Mr. Pereira, Kumar, Dunbar, and other Veludi custodians is baseless, as Mr. Pereira’s Notices for Discovery and Inspection (Mr. Pereira’s “DNIs”) specifically called for, inter alia, texts, and defined Veludi as “plaintiff Veludi Capital Strategies, LLC, its employees, agents, officers, directors, managers, supervisors, attorneys and any other persons acting under the name or authority of Veludi Capital Strategies, LLC.” (Mr. Pereira’s DNI’s at “Definitions” ¶¶ 2‐ 3, 9). To that end, unless Mr. Goel was the only party with Veludi computer files and/or a Veludi email account — which is very much not the case, inasmuch as Mr. Pereira’s document production contains at least one email Aneesh Kumar sent from an “@veludi.com” email address (Bates No. PEREIRA_0622) — his having only searched his emails is insufficient. That is, Mr. Goel is not Veludi’s only custodian, and his emails are not the full extent of ESI within his and Veludi’s possession, custody, and control. Further, Mr. Goel’s having only searched for emails “received from or sent to Manny Periera; as well as to or from Robert Dunbar and Sunil Kumar relating to Manny Periera” is insufficient. It is unclear what Mr. Goel believes to “relat[e] to Manny Pereira,” and it seems evident that the search criteria identified in the Affidavit necessarily missed numerous potentially responsive documents relating to the matters at issue in this action, including without limitation, documents relative to Mr. Goel’s employment with MassMutual, his compensation records, his disciplinary history, and his termination. In fact, the Affidavit seems to indicate that Mr. Goel never even searched for correspondence between himself and MassMutual. It is likewise unclear why Mr. Goel believes that searching emails between he, Dunbar, Kumar, and Mr. Pereira would be sufficient, given that both he and Veludi identified a number of persons as potentially “having information or knowledge regarding any claim or defense” in this action in response to Mr. Pereira’s Demand for Witnesses, Admissions, and Statements. Such a limited search is insufficient. In light of the above, Mr. Pereira will not be withdrawing his Cross‐Motion (NYSCEF Mot. Seq. No. 7). Please confirm that you will be conducting an exhaustive search for discoverable matter by a date certain, supplement Mr. Goel and Veludi’s document production, and prepare a detailed certification upon your completion thereof. In the event you decline to do so and/or would like to discuss this further, please let me know when you are available for a telephonic meet and confer. All rights reserved. Best, Adam Wald, Esq. Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 190 Willis Ave Mineola, NY 11501 Phone 516-747-0300 Ext. 528 Fax 516-747-0653 www.meltzerlippe.com New York City Office: 460 Park Avenue – 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone 212-201-1720 2 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2022 04:55 PM INDEX NO. 617853/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2022 From: Craig Riha Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 11:25 AM To: Adam Wald Cc: Tim Feil Subject: Veludi v. Periera Dear Adam: Please see attached. Kindly let me know if you will withdraw your cross‐motion. Craig Riha, Esq. |Associate | Carmel, Milazzo & Feil LLP Phone: 212-658-0458; Ext. 1012 |Fax: 646-838-1314 E-mail: criha@cmfllp.com| Bio | LinkedIn |Website: www.cmfllp.com Long Island Office: 425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 300, Melville, New York 11747 New York City | New Jersey | Long Island | Beverly Hills | Florida NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is legally privileged and/or confidential information, which is intended only for use of recipient. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient (or the agent or employee responsible to deliver it to the intended (recipient), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication by error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Nothing in this e-mail should be construed as a legal opinion or tax advice. Any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) unless otherwise expressly indicated is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This electronic message transmission contains information which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or distribution of this communication to other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by calling (516) 747‐0300 or by electronic mail (info@meltzerlippe.com). Thank you. This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com 3