Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT HARRIS, Index No.: 650175/2017
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS
INTIMO, INC.
- against- NATHAN NATHAN
TOMMY NATHAN
INTIMO INC., NATHAN NATHAN, individually, TOMMY MORRIS ZILKHA
NATHAN, individually, MORIS ZILKHA, individually, and COMBINED
JOHN DOES 1-10, and ABC CORPS. 1-10, fictitious names RESPONSES TO
for persons or entities whose present roles and identities are PLAINTIFF’S
unknown, DOCUMENT
Defendants. DEMANDS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Defendants, Intimo, Inc., Nathan Nathan, Tommy Nathan and Morris Zilkha
(“Defendants”) by and through their attorneys, Law Offices of Seth L. Marcus, Esq., reserving
any and all objections to the admissibility of the following information at trial, as and for its
Response and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Request for the Production of Documents, served by
the above captioned Plaintiff hereby states as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Plaintiffs object to those portions of the Requests which purport to impose upon them a
burden of production beyond that required by the New York Civil Practice Law and
Rules (“CPLR”).
2. Plaintiffs object to those portions of the Requests which improperly seek the disclosure of
information that is neither material, necessary nor relevant to the subject matter of this
action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.
1
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019
3. Plaintiffs object to those portions of the Request which improperly seek the disclosure of
materials or information protected by the attorney-client, attorney work product doctrine
or other privilege.
4. Plaintiffs object to the Request to the extent that it requests that they produce documents
outside of their possession, custody or control.
5. Plaintiffs object to the Demand to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,
vague, ambiguous or susceptible to more than one interpretation.
6. All Responses herein and materials produced herewith are made subject to all objections,
and are not intended as a waiver of any objection.
7. To the extent that file names of documents produced refer to particular numbered
demands is for convenience only. Documents produced under a particular demand
number may be responsive to multiple demands.
8. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and/or amend these objections and responses.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
1. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents, if any, in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
2. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents, if any, in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
3. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
4. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents, if any, in their custody and control responsive to this demand.
5. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019
demand.
6. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
7. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced.
Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
8. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
9. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced.
Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
10. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced.
Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
11. Defendants object to this demand insofar as it requests material properly classified as
attorney work product. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific
objection, defendants have not at this time retained any expert to be a witness in this
matter. If an when such witness is retained disclosures will be provided in accordance
with CPLR§3101(d).
12. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced.
Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection, Defendants have
not yet determined what exhibits will be produced at the trial of this matter.
13. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
14. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
15. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
16. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
17. Defendant objects to this demand insofar as it requests material properly classified as
attorney work product. Defendants further object to this Demand as patently
inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with
sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984)
104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
18. Defendants object to this demand as vague, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to
the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Notwithstanding and without waiving any
general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and
control, if any, responsive to this demand.
19. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
20. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
21. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
22. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
23. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial.
Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will
produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
24. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
25. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019
demand.
26. Defendants have not at this time retained any expert to be a witness in this matter. If an
when such witness is retained disclosures will be provided in accordance with
CPLR§3101(d).
27. Defendants object to this demand as overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of
which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b.
28. Defendants object to this demand as overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of
which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b.
29. Defendants object to this demand as overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of
which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b.
30. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of
which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b.
31. Defendants object to this demand as overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of
which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b.
32. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
33. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of
which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b.
34. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of
which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b.
35. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019
information of a highly confidential nature. Notwithstanding and without waiving any
general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents that pertain to
plaintiff’s termination in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
36. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not
reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking
information of a highly confidential nature. Notwithstanding and without waiving any
general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents that pertain to
plaintiff’s termination in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand.
37. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced.
Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
38. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced.
Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
39. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced.
Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
40. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
41. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
42. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
43. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
44. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019
45. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
46. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
47. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly
burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced.
Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81.
48. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
49. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
50. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
51. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
52. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
53. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
54. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019
55. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trialof this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
56. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trialof this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
57. Defendants object to this Demand insofar as it seeks attorney-client privileged
communications and/or attorney work product. Notwithstanding and without waiving any
general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and
control, if any, responsive to this demand.
58. Defendants do not employ "District Managers".
59. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
60. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this
demand.
61. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trialof this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
62. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably
likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trialof this matter, vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity
materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479
N.Y.S.2d 81.
Dated: White Plains, New York
March 7, 2019
Se L. Marcus, Esq.
Law Offices of Seth L. Marcus, Esq.
777 Westchester Avenue, Suite 101
White Plains, New York 10604
(t) 212.686.2555
seth@simarcuslaw.com
8
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X ROBERT HARRIS, Index No.: 650175/2017 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS INTIMO, INC. - against- NATHAN NATHAN TOMMY NATHAN INTIMO INC., NATHAN NATHAN, individually, TOMMY MORRIS ZILKHA NATHAN, individually, MORIS ZILKHA, individually, and COMBINED JOHN DOES 1-10, and ABC CORPS. 1-10, fictitious names RESPONSES TO for persons or entities whose present roles and identities are PLAINTIFF’S unknown, DOCUMENT Defendants. DEMANDS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X Defendants, Intimo, Inc., Nathan Nathan, Tommy Nathan and Morris Zilkha (“Defendants”) by and through their attorneys, Law Offices of Seth L. Marcus, Esq., reserving any and all objections to the admissibility of the following information at trial, as and for its Response and Objections to Plaintiff’s First Request for the Production of Documents, served by the above captioned Plaintiff hereby states as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiffs object to those portions of the Requests which purport to impose upon them a burden of production beyond that required by the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”). 2. Plaintiffs object to those portions of the Requests which improperly seek the disclosure of information that is neither material, necessary nor relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. 1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019 3. Plaintiffs object to those portions of the Request which improperly seek the disclosure of materials or information protected by the attorney-client, attorney work product doctrine or other privilege. 4. Plaintiffs object to the Request to the extent that it requests that they produce documents outside of their possession, custody or control. 5. Plaintiffs object to the Demand to the extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous or susceptible to more than one interpretation. 6. All Responses herein and materials produced herewith are made subject to all objections, and are not intended as a waiver of any objection. 7. To the extent that file names of documents produced refer to particular numbered demands is for convenience only. Documents produced under a particular demand number may be responsive to multiple demands. 8. Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and/or amend these objections and responses. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 1. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents, if any, in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 2. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents, if any, in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 3. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 4. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents, if any, in their custody and control responsive to this demand. 5. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019 demand. 6. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 7. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 8. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 9. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 10. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 11. Defendants object to this demand insofar as it requests material properly classified as attorney work product. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection, defendants have not at this time retained any expert to be a witness in this matter. If an when such witness is retained disclosures will be provided in accordance with CPLR§3101(d). 12. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection, Defendants have not yet determined what exhibits will be produced at the trial of this matter. 13. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 14. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 15. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019 produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 16. Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 17. Defendant objects to this demand insofar as it requests material properly classified as attorney work product. Defendants further object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 18. Defendants object to this demand as vague, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 19. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 20. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 21. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 22. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 23. Defendants object to this demand as vague, oppressive, overly broad, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 24. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 25. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019 demand. 26. Defendants have not at this time retained any expert to be a witness in this matter. If an when such witness is retained disclosures will be provided in accordance with CPLR§3101(d). 27. Defendants object to this demand as overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b. 28. Defendants object to this demand as overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b. 29. Defendants object to this demand as overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b. 30. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b. 31. Defendants object to this demand as overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b. 32. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 33. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b. 34. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking information of a highly confidential nature and seeking information the disclosure of which would violate NY Labor Law §203-b. 35. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019 information of a highly confidential nature. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents that pertain to plaintiff’s termination in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 36. Defendants object to this demand as vague, overly broad, oppressive, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to the lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial, as seeking information of a highly confidential nature. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents that pertain to plaintiff’s termination in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 37. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 38. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 39. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 40. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 41. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 42. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 43. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 44. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019 45. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 46. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 47. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 48. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 49. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 50. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 51. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 52. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 53. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 54. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/03/2019 11:29 AM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/03/2019 55. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trialof this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 56. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trialof this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 57. Defendants object to this Demand insofar as it seeks attorney-client privileged communications and/or attorney work product. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 58. Defendants do not employ "District Managers". 59. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 60. Defendants will produce documents in their custody and control, if any, responsive to this demand. 61. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trialof this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. 62. Defendants object to this Demand as patently inappropriate, irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trialof this matter, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome as failing to identify with sufficient specificity materials to be produced. Jonassen v. A.M.F., Inc. (2 Dept. 1984) 104 A.D.2d 484, 479 N.Y.S.2d 81. Dated: White Plains, New York March 7, 2019 Se L. Marcus, Esq. Law Offices of Seth L. Marcus, Esq. 777 Westchester Avenue, Suite 101 White Plains, New York 10604 (t) 212.686.2555 seth@simarcuslaw.com 8