Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2019 05:37 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2019
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 12/30/2019 05:37 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2019
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. Demand
For the time period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2013, all documents
(including but not limited to invoices, Sales Summaries by Customer, Sales Summaries
by Customer with GP$ Reports, Invoice Summary by Customer, and Invoice Summary
by Customer Reports (Short Version)) reflecting the amounts of money invoiced (or
billed) by Intimo to the following customers: Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart - Seasonal, Wal-Mart
– Wrangler, Wal-Mart – Kids, Target, Target – Kids, Meijer, Jockey, Jockey-Sleep,
Jockey T’s, Jockey – Active, Jockey – Softknit, Jockey – Corel, Kmart, Kmart -
Wrangler, K-Mart - Seasonal, K-Mart – Boys, K-Mart – Girls, K-Mart – Infant Toddler,
Kohl’s, Kohl’s – Men’s, VF Employee Stores, Army, AAFES, Sears, Sears Holding, Inc.,
and J C Penny.
Answer
Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
purporting to impose upon them a burden of production beyond what is required by the
CPLR, purporting to impose upon them an obligation to generate documents not
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2019 05:37 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2019
presently in existence, and as irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery
of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter. Defendants further object to this
demand as seeking confidential and proprietary business information.
2. Demand
For the time period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2013, all documents
(including but not limited to invoices, Sales Summaries by Customer, Sales Summaries
by Customer with GP$ Reports, Invoice Summary by Customer, Invoice Summary by
Customer Reports (Short Version), profit and loss statements, Quickbooks records, check
registers, bank statements and documents provided to the IRS and state and/or local tax
authorities) reflecting the amounts of money received by Intimo from the following
customers: Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart - Seasonal, Wal-Mart – Wrangler, Wal-Mart – Kids,
Target, Target – Kids, Meijer, Jockey, Jockey-Sleep, Jockey T’s, Jockey – Active,
Jockey – Softknit, Jockey – Corel, Kmart, Kmart - Wrangler, K-Mart - Seasonal, K-Mart
– Boys, K-Mart – Girls, K-Mart – Infant Toddler, Kohl’s, Kohl’s – Men’s, VF Employee
Stores, Army, AAFES, Sears, Sears Holding, Inc., and J C Penny.
Answer
Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
purporting to impose upon them a burden of production beyond what is required by the
CPLR, purporting to impose upon them an obligation to generate documents not
presently in existence, and as irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery
of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter. Defendants further object to this
demand as seeking confidential and proprietary business information.
3. Demand
For the time period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2016, all of Robert Harris’
emails on Defendants’ email system from all folders including inbox, sent, outbox, drafts,
trash, junk and all subfolders.
Answer
Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
purporting to impose upon them a burden of production beyond what is required by the
CPLR, purporting to impose upon them an obligation to generate documents not
presently in existence, and as irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery
of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter. Defendants further object to this
demand as seeking confidential and proprietary business information. Notwithstanding
and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce material
responsive to this demand.
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2019 05:37 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2019
4. Demand
All text messages sent to or received by any of the Defendants relating to Robert Harris.
Answer
Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
purporting to impose upon them a burden of production beyond what is required by the
CPLR, purporting to impose upon them an obligation to generate documents not
presently in existence, and as irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery
of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter.
Dated: Scarsdale, New York
March 7, 2019
________________________
Seth L. Marcus, Esq.
Law Offices of Seth L. Marcus, Esq.
670 White Plains Road, PH
Scarsdale, New York 10583
(t) 212.686.2555
seth@slmarcuslaw.com
4
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2019 05:37 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2019 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 12/30/2019 05:37 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2019 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. Demand For the time period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2013, all documents (including but not limited to invoices, Sales Summaries by Customer, Sales Summaries by Customer with GP$ Reports, Invoice Summary by Customer, and Invoice Summary by Customer Reports (Short Version)) reflecting the amounts of money invoiced (or billed) by Intimo to the following customers: Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart - Seasonal, Wal-Mart – Wrangler, Wal-Mart – Kids, Target, Target – Kids, Meijer, Jockey, Jockey-Sleep, Jockey T’s, Jockey – Active, Jockey – Softknit, Jockey – Corel, Kmart, Kmart - Wrangler, K-Mart - Seasonal, K-Mart – Boys, K-Mart – Girls, K-Mart – Infant Toddler, Kohl’s, Kohl’s – Men’s, VF Employee Stores, Army, AAFES, Sears, Sears Holding, Inc., and J C Penny. Answer Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, purporting to impose upon them a burden of production beyond what is required by the CPLR, purporting to impose upon them an obligation to generate documents not 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2019 05:37 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2019 presently in existence, and as irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter. Defendants further object to this demand as seeking confidential and proprietary business information. 2. Demand For the time period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2013, all documents (including but not limited to invoices, Sales Summaries by Customer, Sales Summaries by Customer with GP$ Reports, Invoice Summary by Customer, Invoice Summary by Customer Reports (Short Version), profit and loss statements, Quickbooks records, check registers, bank statements and documents provided to the IRS and state and/or local tax authorities) reflecting the amounts of money received by Intimo from the following customers: Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart - Seasonal, Wal-Mart – Wrangler, Wal-Mart – Kids, Target, Target – Kids, Meijer, Jockey, Jockey-Sleep, Jockey T’s, Jockey – Active, Jockey – Softknit, Jockey – Corel, Kmart, Kmart - Wrangler, K-Mart - Seasonal, K-Mart – Boys, K-Mart – Girls, K-Mart – Infant Toddler, Kohl’s, Kohl’s – Men’s, VF Employee Stores, Army, AAFES, Sears, Sears Holding, Inc., and J C Penny. Answer Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, purporting to impose upon them a burden of production beyond what is required by the CPLR, purporting to impose upon them an obligation to generate documents not presently in existence, and as irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter. Defendants further object to this demand as seeking confidential and proprietary business information. 3. Demand For the time period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2016, all of Robert Harris’ emails on Defendants’ email system from all folders including inbox, sent, outbox, drafts, trash, junk and all subfolders. Answer Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, purporting to impose upon them a burden of production beyond what is required by the CPLR, purporting to impose upon them an obligation to generate documents not presently in existence, and as irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter. Defendants further object to this demand as seeking confidential and proprietary business information. Notwithstanding and without waiving any general or specific objection Defendants will produce material responsive to this demand. 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2019 05:37 PM INDEX NO. 650175/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2019 4. Demand All text messages sent to or received by any of the Defendants relating to Robert Harris. Answer Defendants object to this Demand as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, purporting to impose upon them a burden of production beyond what is required by the CPLR, purporting to impose upon them an obligation to generate documents not presently in existence, and as irrelevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at the trial of this matter. Dated: Scarsdale, New York March 7, 2019 ________________________ Seth L. Marcus, Esq. Law Offices of Seth L. Marcus, Esq. 670 White Plains Road, PH Scarsdale, New York 10583 (t) 212.686.2555 seth@slmarcuslaw.com 4