Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
EXHIBIT C
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
GREGORY WELCH and PRISCILLA WELCH, Index No.: 162502/2015
Plaintiff, HANES SUPPLY. INC'S RESPONSES3TO
v. SKYLIFT'S COMBINED FIRST
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR
260-261 MADISON AVENUE LLC, SKYLIFT DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION
CONTRACTOR CORP., BAY CRANE
SERVICE INC.,
Defendants.
SKYLIFT CONTRACTOR CORP.,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
COMPANY, INC., d/b/a MARINE &
INDUSTRIAL TESTING SOLUTIONS;
MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TESTING
SOLUTIONS; HANES SUPPLY, INC., as
successor-by-merger to and/or d/b/a PAUL'S
WIRE ROPE & SLING; and PAUL'S WIRE
ROPE & SLING,
Third-Party Defendants.
260-261 MADISON AVENUE LLC.,
Second Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
COMPANY, INC., d/b/a MARINE &
INDUSTRIAL TESTING SOLUTIONS;
MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TESTING
SOLUTIONS; HANES SUPPLY, INC., as
successor-by-merger to and/ord/b/a PAUL'S
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
PAUL'
WIRE ROPE & SLING; and S W1RE
ROPE & SLING.
Second Third-Party Defendants.
SKYLIFT CONTRACTOR CORP.,
Third Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, CORP.,
Third Defendants.
Third-Party
Defendant/Third-Party Defendant, HANES SUPPLY, INC. ("Hanes"), by and through
their attorneys, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, as and fortheir response to the
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Skylift Contractor Corp.'s ("Skylift") Combined First
Requests"
Interrogatories and Requests for Discovery and Inspection ("Discovery or "Requests")
dated February 21, 2019 allege upon information and belief as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Hanes relies upon each of the General Objections stated below as though fully set forth
herein in response to each Interrogatory. Hanes reserves the right to amend, modify, or supple-ent
the objections and responses stated herein to the extent required and/or permitted under the New
York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Answers to these Interrogatories are based upon information known to Hanes at this time
Hanes'
and are made without prejudice to right to supplement. Hanes reserves the right to rely on
any documents or evidence that may develop or come to itsattention at a later date. Pradnetion of
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
any information subject to stated objections does not constitute a waiver of Hanes right to dispute
discovery concerning other information. Production of information does not constitute a waiver of
Hanes'
right to object to its admissibility.
Hanes reserves the right to amend its answers to these Interrogatories, as well as to object
to the competency, relevance, materiality, and admissibility of same.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
1. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Reqüésts to the extent that they seek to alter,
expand or otherwise modify the obligations, requirements and definitions imposed by the New
York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules.
2. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or any
other applicable privileges or that has been prepared in anticipation of litigation and at the request
of counsel.
3. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek the
identification and production of information and documentation not in the possession, custody, or
control of Hanes, and are therefore beyond the scope of discovery allowed under applicable rules.
4. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek discovery
of information or documents already within the possession or control of Skylift, including but not
limited to publicly-available information, on the grounds that they are unduly burdensome and
oppressive.
5. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent they are cumulative and
duplicative of other requests contained therein.
6. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they are vague,
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
ambiguous, overly broad, unlimited in time, irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, speculative,
conclusory, unduly burdensome, oppressive, argumentative and/or not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
7. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek
confidential personal, commercial, business, financial, proprietary or competitively sensitive
information.
8. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek the
disclosure of private and confidential information relating to third parties not subject to this suit or
make inquiries about matters the disclosure of which is prohibited by statute, regulation or other
applicable law.
9. The inadvertent production of any privileged document shall not be deemed a
waiver of any applicable privilege with respect to that document or any other document or
information.
10. By respeñdiñg to Skylift's Discovery Requests, Hanes does not concede that any
of the information requested is relevant to the subject matter of this action, is caleülated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, or is evidence that may properly be considered for any
motion or at trial.Hanes expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery into the subject
matter of the Discovery Requests and the right to object to the introductiõñ into evidence of any
of information provided in response to the Discovery Requests, whether in motion practice or at
trial.
11. Any reference to a document coñtaiñed in the responses shall not be deemed to be
an admission that any particular copy of the document is authentic or genuine, nor shall it be
deemed an admiscian of the relevañce or admissibility of the document. Hanes reserves the right
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
to object to the authenticity, relevance and admissibility of allsuch documents referred to in the
responses to the Discovery Requests.
12. Any response made by Hanes is for the purpose of the pending action only and is
notefor any other purpose, nor may itbe used against Hanes in any other proceeding.
13. Hanes reserves the right to supplement this response and to raise any additional
objections deemed necessary and appropriate in light of the results of any further review.
The foregoing general objections are incorporated by reference into the following specific
objections and responses, and any objection or response by Hanes to any Discovery Request below
is made without waiver of, and subject to, these gêñeral objections. In the event any information
falling within one or more of these objections is disclosed in these responses, the disclosure is
inadvertent and shall not constitute a waiver of the objections.
ANSWERS TO DOCUMENT REOUESTS
1. State the actual date of the closing of the purchase by Hanes of the assets of Paul's
Wire pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the graüñds that it vague, smug;c;a, and
overly broad.
Subject to and without waiving the foregaing objectians and the General Objections set forth
Hanes'
above, response is: January 2, 2013. Additionally, see documcats produced herein,
bate stamped Hanes0001-Hanes0043. Hanes reserves the right to amend/supplement this
response as discovery continues.
2. (a) Identify the inventories, including supplies, spare parts and raw materials, that
Hanes acquired from Paul's Wire; and (b) produce copies of all documents concerning the
acquisition of those assets.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad,
unduly burdensome, not proportionate to the needs of this case, and not reasonably
"Identify"
calculated to lead to the discavery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the term
is overbroad, vague, and ambiguous.
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
Subject to and without waiving the forq:i:¡;; objections and the General Objections set forth
above, see documents preduced herein, bate stamped Hanes0044-Hanes0072. Hanes reserves
the right to amend this response as discovery continues.
3. (a) Identify the 1000 Ton Press, two small ESCO Presses, Dies, two Coiling
Machines, Saw, Office Equipment, Furniture, 2001 Truck and 2000 Chevrolet S10 Pick Up Truck
that Hanes acquired from Paul's Wire; and (b) produce copies of all documents concerning the
acquisition of those assets.
RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorparates its objections and itsresponse to Request No. 2.
4. (a) Identify the Racks, Shelving and Pallet Racks that Hanes acquired from Paul's
Wire; and (b) produce copies of alldocuments concerning the acquisition of those assets.
RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorporates its objections and itsresponse to Request No. 2.
5. (a) Identify allpersons on behalf of Hanes who obtained access to the premises and
operations of Paul's Wire pursuant to paragraph 4.1 of the Asset Purchase Agreement; and (b)
produce copies of all documents concerning the access they obtained.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that itis overly broad, vague,
ambiguous, and not proportionate to the needs of this case. Hanes further cbjects to this
Request on the grounds that itis beyond the permissible scope of discovery, premature, and
exceeds Skylift's reasêñshls need for information in order to address the specified
allegations.
6. all doc-+= the customers and accounts receivable of
(a) Identify concerning
Paul's Wire that were provided to Hanes at or prior to the closing; and (b) produce copies of all
such documents.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague,
ambiguous, and not proportianate to the needs of this case. Hanes further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it isbeyañd the permissible scope of discovery, premature, and
exceeds Skylift's reaeenable need for information in order to address the specified
allegations.
6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
Subject to and without waiving the foregaing objections and the General Objections set forth
above, see documents predüced herein, bate stamped Hanes0073. Hanes reserves the right
to amend/supplement this response as discovery continues.
7. Identify (a) alllists of payers of the accounts receivable of Paul's Wire that Hanes
provided monthly to Paul's Wire and/or Paul Cianciola; (b) all documents concerning
communications between Hanes and the customers of Paul's Wire coñcemiñg the efforts of Hanes
to collect the accounts receivable of Paul's Wire and the payment by customers of accounts
receivable; and (c)produce copies of all such documents.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague,
c-..tig,ssus, and not proportionate to the needs of this case. Hanes further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it isbeyond the permissible scope of discovery, premature, and
exceeds Skylift's reasonable need for information in order to address the specified
allegations.
Subject to and without waiving the faregaing objections and the General Objections set forth
above, see documents produced herein, bate stamped Hanes 0073. Hanes reserves the right
to amend/supplement this response as discovery continues.
8. Identify the premises at which Paul's Wire condüeted its business in Branford,
Connecticut.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that itis vague, c:±fg;aüs, and
not proportionate to the needs of this case.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the General objections set forth
Hanes'
above, response is:4 Indian Neck Avenue, Milford, CT 06405.
9. (a) State whether Hanes, at any time after the closing, conducted business at the
premises at which Paul's Wire formerly conducted itsbusiness in Branford, Connecticut. If so,(b)
state the dates on which Hanes conducted business at such premises and whether Hanes currently
conducts business there; and (c) identify and produce copies of all leases concerning those
premises.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it isvague, an±!gacüs, not
7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
proportionate to the needs of this case, and beyond the permissible scope of discovery.
Subject to and without waiving the foregaing 0bjections and the General Objections set forth
Hanes'
above, response is:(a) January 2, 2013; (b) Hanes continues to cesduct business at 4
Indian Neck Avenue, Milford, CT 06405; (c) Additionally,see doesmêsts produced herein,
hate stamped Hanes0001-Hanes0043. Hanes reserves the right to amend/supplement this
response as discovery continues.
10. (a) State whether Hanes, at any times after the closing, conducted business under
Sling" Wire."
the name "Paul's Wire Rope & or any other name containing the words "Paul's If
so, (b) state the dates on which Hanes conducted the business using such name(s) and whether
Hanes currently conducts business using those name(s); and (c) describe and produce copies of all
documents concerning any signage at such premises.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague,
ambiguous, not proportionate to the needs of this case, and beycad the permi••ihie scope of
discovery. Hanes further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks information
and/or documents that is or may be confidential and/or proprietary, or otherwise constitutes
a trade secret.
11. If the answer to question 10(a) is in the affirmative, (a) state whether Hanes had a
policy or custom and practice of communicatiñg to the former customers of Paul's Wire that Hanes
Sling"
was doing the business under the name "Paul's Wire Rope & or any other name containing
the words "Paul's Wire"; (b) identify and produce all documents concerning that or custom
policy
and practice; (c) desc1ibe alloral communications between Hanes and former customers of Paul?s
Wire concerning the fact that Hanes was doing business under the name "Paul's Wire Rope &
Sling" Wire."
or any other name containing the words "Paul's
RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorporates its objections and its response to Request No. 10.
12. If the answer to question 10(a) is in the affirmative, identify and produce copies of
(a) alladvertising or promotion of the business of Hanes conducted under the name "Paul's Wire
Sling" Wire,"
Rope & or any other name containing the words "Paul's iñc1üding allpates owned
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
or controlled by Hanes, any social media pages owned or controlled by Hanes, any advertisement
in traditional or on-line newspapers, magazines or other mass media, any circulars or fliers
distributed by mail or in any other manner; (b) all fonn receipts, invoices, letter heads, email
signature blocks, and other documents u3ed by Hanes in connection with itsbusiness under such
name.
RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorporates itsobjections and its response to Request No. 10.
13. Ifthe answer to question 10(a) is in the affirmative, (a) identify all suppliers of
Paul's Wire with whom Hanes obtained supplies at any time for the business itconducted under
Sling"
the name "Paul's Wire Rope & or any other name contained the words "Paul's Wire"; (b)
states the dates on which Hanes obtained supplies from each of those suppliers and whether it
continues to do so; (c) statewhether Hanes had a policy or custom and practice of communicating
to the former suppliers of Paul's Wire that Hanes was doing business under that name; (b)identify
and produce all documents concerning that policy or custom and practice; (c) describe all oral
communications between Hanes and former suppliers of Paul's Wire cõüceniing the fact that
Hanes was doing business under that name.
RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorporates its chjectisas and itsresponse to Request No. 10.
14. a) State whether Paul R. Cianciola at any time bec[a]me an employee of Hanes. If
so, (b) state the dates of his employment and whether he continues to be so employed; (c) ifnot so
employed, set forth his last known residence address, (d) state alljob titlesheld by Ciancicia at
Hanes, the dates he held such title,and describe his respoñsibilities under each such title.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague,
ambiguous, not proportionate to the needs of this case, and beyond the permissible scope of
discovery.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the General Objections set forth
Hanes'
above, response is:
9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
(a) Paul R. Cianciola is an êmployee of Hanes;
2013 -
(b) January 2, present;
(c) Not applicable;
(d) Outside Sales Associate;
(e) Hanes is not in possession of document(s) responsive to this request.
15. a) Identify any other former employees, officers, or directors of Paul's Wire who
at any time became employees of Hanes. For each such person, (b) state the dates of his/her
employment and whether he/she continues to be employed; (c) ifnot so employed, set forth his/her
last known residence address; (d) state alljob titles held by each such person at Hanes, the dates
he/she held each such title, and describe his/her responsibilities under each such title; and (e)
produce copies of all employment contracts between Hanes and each such person.
RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague,
amingucus, not proportionate to the needs of this case, and beyond the permlssible scope of
discovery.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing abjections and the General Objections set forth
Hanes'
above, response is:
(a) Paul Cianciola, Jr.;
2013 -
(b) January 2, February 18, 2013;
(c) 11 Circle Drive, Branford CT 06405;
(d) General Manager.;
(e) Hanes is not in possession of document(s) responsive to this request.
(a) Bruce Vetre;
October 2007 -
(b) 8, Present;
(c) Not applicable;
(d) Sales, Book keeping, Admin.;
(e) Hanes is not in põssession of document(s) responsive to this request.
(a) Richard Adams;
April 1989 -
(b) Present;
(c) Not applicable;
(d) Shop Worker;
10
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
(e) Hanes is not in possession of document(s) responsive to this request.
(a) David Mullen;
2010 -
(b) January 11, Present;
(c) Not applicable;
(d) Sales, Book keeping, Admin.;
(e) Hanes is not in possessics of document(s) responsive to this request.
Hanes reserves the right to amend/supplement this response as discõvery continues.
Dated: June 21, 2019
Harrison, New York
Respectfully Submitted,
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
By /s/ Gregory Picciano
Gregory R. Picciano
epiccianod yersm,com
500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 503
Harrison, NY 10528
Phone: (914) 777-2210
Counsel for Defendant/Third-Party Defendant
Hanes Supply, Inc.
To: KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
SKYLIFT CONTRACTOR CORP.
20th
40 Exchange Place, FlOOr
New York, New York 10005
Attn: Scott E. Miller, Esq.
(212) 485-9600
11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
Jay H. Tanenbaum
LAW OFFICE OF JAY H. TANENBAUM
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14 Wall Street. Suite 5F
New York, NY 10005
LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant/Second Third-Party Plaintiff
260-261 MADISON AVENUE, LLC.
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2104
New York, New York 10170
Dennis Dozis, Esq.
CASCONE & KLUEPFEL, LLP
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.
1399 Franklin Avenue, Suite 302
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 747-1990
File No.: 04584DZB
MILLER ZUCKER & SHARFSTEIN, LLP
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
1201 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, New York 11556
Brian P Walsh, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
2555 Grand Blyd,
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Cary Maynard, Esq.
SARETSKY KATZ & DRANOFF, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs on the Counter Claims
Gregory Welch and Priscilla Welch
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
t 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019
., WPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
C : COUN1Y OF NEW YORK
Plaintitt ,
-agafma-
Index No.: 162502/2015
260-261MADISONAVENUELLC SKYl.IFT
CONTRACTOR CORP.andBAYCRANESERVICEINC,
4 Defendants. . gg
SKYLIFTCONTRACTORCORP.,
.
Plamuff.
Tlúrd-Pany
MARINE& INDUSTRIALSUPPLYCOMPANY.INC.,dha MARINE&
!NDUSTRIALTESTINGSOLUTIONS: TESTING
MARINE& INDUSTRIAL
toand/ord
HANESSUPPLY,INC..anwccessor-hy-merger
SOLUTIONS: aPAUL'S
WIREROPE& SLING;andPAUL·SWIREROPEA SLING, 1
Defendant
Tierd-Party
260-261MADISONAVENUE ., .
SreorxiT1ürd-Pany
Plaintiff,
-agafr
MARINE& INDUSTRIALSUPPLYCOMPANY,INC, daMARINE&
INDUSTRIAL MARINE& INDUSTRIALTESTING
TESTINOSOLUTIONS;
toand/ordWaPAUL'S
HANESSUPPLY,INC.,asauccessor-by-merger
SOLUTIONS:
WAREROPE& SLING;andPAUL'SWIREROPE& SLING,
Second
PanyDeferulants.
. SKYLIFTCONTRACTORCORP,
Thin!Ttúrd-Pany
PlaindtT
JOHNSONCONTRO LS.INC.,
llurd ildrd - PanyDefendants. ,
HANES SUPPLY, INC S RESPONSES TO SKYLiliT'S COMBINED FIRST
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION
GORDONREESSCULLYMANSUKHANI, LLP
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
HANES SUPPLY, INC.
500 MamarOneck Avenue, Suite 503
Harrison, NY 10528
(914) 777-2225
Related Content
in New York County
Case
Shakina Sumi, Mohammad Khan v. Reena Parikh M.D., Sasha H. Beovich P.A., Erica Burke Pa-C, Katrina Bradley M.D., Eun-Je Lee M.D., The New York And Presbyterian Hospital
Jul 08, 2024 |
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
805191/2024
Case
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. All City Family Healthcare Center, Inc., American Medical Initiatives, P.C., Barry A. Baker, M.D., Central Supplies Of Ny Corp., Centurion Midtown Medical, Pllc, City Medical Of Upper East Side, Pllc, Ds Msk Consultants, Inc., Esther Chaim Medical, P.C., Ezrah Medical, P.C., Health Wellness Medical Services, Pllc, Ipills Pharmacy, Inc., Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings A/K/A Labcorp Of America, Medex Diagnostic And Treatment Center, Llc, Modern Wellness Np In Family Health, P.L.L.C., Mosaic Diagnostic Imaging, Pllc, Naturalife Chiropractic, P.C., Nextstep Healing, Inc., Portal Medical, P.C., Right Choice Supply, Inc., Right Motion P.T., P.C., Sedation Vacation Perioperative Medicine, Pllc, U.K. Sinha Physician, P.C., Upendra Sinha, M.D., Nilhec J. Diaz, Kervin Omar Otero Nieves
Jul 11, 2024 |
Torts - Other (Declaratory Judgment) |
Torts - Other (Declaratory Judgment) |
156321/2024
Ruling
K. QUILLIN VS. NOELLE BECKER MORENO ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC24611734
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 11. DEFENDANT NOELLE MORENO's MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT. Off calendar for noncompliance with Local Rule 2.7(B) (courtesy copies). The motion may be re-set for a Mon.-Thurs. after July 24, with papers to bear new hearing date. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
ARMEN BEGOYAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
Jul 11, 2024 |
21STCV34525
Case Number:
21STCV34525
Hearing Date:
July 11, 2024
Dept:
32
PLEASE NOTE
:
Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.
If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at
sscdept32@lacourt.org
indicating that partys intention to submit.
The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.
If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.
Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court
.
TENTATIVE RULING
DEPT
:
32
HEARING DATE
:
July 11, 2024
CASE NUMBER
:
21STCV34525
MOTIONS
:
Motion for Terminating Sanctions
MOVING PARTY:
Defendant City of Los Angeles
OPPOSING PARTY:
None
BACKGROUND
Defendant City of Los Angeles (
Defendant) moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff
Armen Begoyan (Plaintiff) for failure to comply with the Courts April 26, 2024 discovery order. Defendant seeks to dismiss the entire action. No opposition has been filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose&sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2023.030.) The court may impose a terminating sanction for misuse of the discovery process by any of the following: (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process; (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed; (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party; (4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(d).)
Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery, or
disobeying a court order to provide discovery,
constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d), (g).)
The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery. (
Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390, quoting
Lang v. Hochman
(2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)
Generally, [a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly.
But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction. (
Los Defensores, supra
, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)
Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders. (
Los Defensores, supra
, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 citing
Lang, supra
, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]; see, e.g.,
Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian
(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed (by striking the defendants Answer and subsequently granting default judgment) after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery];
Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in
Garcia v. McCutchen
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4 [terminating sanctions imposed against the plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].)
If a party . . . fails to obey an order compelling answers [to interrogatories or requests for production], the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c); 2031.300(c).)
DISCUSSION
Written discovery was originally served on Plaintiff on March 1, 2023. (Kahramanian Decl. ¶ 2.) On September 21, 2023 and January 11, 2024, Defendants counsel emailed Plaintiffs counsel requesting responses but received no response. (
Id.
¶ 3.)
On April 26, 2024, the Court granted
Defendants unopposed motion to compel Plaintiffs responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff was ordered to provide verified responses, without objections, within 10 days. (Min. Order, 4/26/24.) The Court also imposed $700.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record.
On May 2, 2024, Defendant filed and served electronic notice of the ruling on Plaintiffs counsel. Defendant contends that no responses have been served complying with the Courts order. (Kahramanian Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion.
Therefore, it appears that the discovery was first served in March 2023, and the motion to compel was granted on April 26, 2024. Throughout this time, Defendant sought to obtain responses through informal ways before ultimately obtaining an order to compel. The delay in time also demonstrates that Defendant has been prevented from mounting a defense against this case. Considering the above, the fact Plaintiff did not oppose this motion nor the previous motion to compel, and monetary sanctions have been ineffective, the Court finds Plaintiffs actions to be willful. Therefore, the motion for terminating sanctions is granted.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, Defendant
City of Los Angeles
motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The only remaining defendants are Doe Defendants who have not been named or served, and therefore t
he Court orders the complaint dismissed in its entirety.
If Defendant moves to dismiss the cross-complaint at the hearing on this motion, then the Final Status Conference and Jury Trial dates will be advanced and vacated.
Defendant shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file a proof of service of such.
Ruling
Gilbert Hernandez vs. In-Shape Health Clubs, LLC
Jul 11, 2024 |
20CV-02521
20CV-02521 Gilbert Hernandez v. In-Shape Health Clubs LLC
Trial Settng Conference
Appearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appear
remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remote
appearance. Appear to address the status of case following the unsuccessful mediation
and whether it is time to set this matter for trial.
Ruling
SOCORRO ALEGRIA VS ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 11, 2024 |
24PSCV00032
Case Number:
24PSCV00032
Hearing Date:
July 11, 2024
Dept:
K
1.
Defendant AltaMed Health Services Corporations Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is summarily GRANTED in part (i.e., as to the fifth, sixth and tenth causes of action) and otherwise DENIED in part (i.e., as to the eighth and ninth causes of action).
2.
Defendant AltaMed Health Services Corporations Motion to Strike is DENIED as MOOT.
Background
Plaintiff Socorro Alegria (Plaintiff) alleges as follows: Plaintiff was sexually assaulted during her March 22, 2023 medical imaging appointment. On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against AltaMed Health Services Corporation (AltaMed), Jose Luis Sanchez and Does 1-20 for:
1.
Negligent Hiring Retention, Supervision and Failure to Terminate (v. AltaMed only)
2.
Common Law Assault (v. Sanchez only)
3.
Common Law Battery (v. Sanchez only)
4.
Sexual Battery in Violation of Civil Code § 1708.5 (v. Sanchez only)
5.
Violation of Civil Code § 51.7
6.
Sexual Harassment in Violation of Civil Code § 51.9
7.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (v. Sanchez only)
8.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
9.
Negligence (v. AltaMed only)
10.
Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act A Case Management Conference is set for July 11, 2024.
1.
Judgment on the Pleadings
Legal Standard
The rules governing demurrers are generally applicable to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (
Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp.
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999; Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d) [The grounds for motion. . . shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. . ., the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit].)
A motion by a plaintiff may only be made on the grounds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) A motion by a defendant may only be made on the grounds that (1) [t]he court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint or (2) [t]he complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c).)
Although a nonstatutory motion may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself (
Stoops v. Abbassi
(2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650 [quotation marks and citation omitted]), a statutory motion cannot be made after entry of a pretrial conference order or 30 days before the initial trial date, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (e).)
Discussion
AltaMed moves the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 438, for judgment on the pleadings as to the fifth, sixth, and eighth through tenth (i.e., for
Violation of Civil Code § 51.7, Sexual Harassment in Violation of Civil Code § 51.9, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence and Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, respectively)
causes of action in Plaintiffs complaint, on the basis that they each fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action.
At the outset, Plaintiff represents that she agrees to dismiss her fifth, sixth and tenth causes of action, without prejudice (Opp., 1:26-2:2); accordingly, in the event a Request for Dismissal is not on file by the time of the hearing, the court will summarily grant the motion in this regard.
The courts following analysis, then, is limited to Plaintiffs eighth and ninth causes of action, for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligence, respectively:
AltaMed asserts that these causes of action fail because it cannot be held vicariously liable for an alleged sexual assault by its employee. [A]n employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed within the scope of the employment. (
Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital
(1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 296.) However, [a]n
employer will not be held liable for an assault or other intentional tort that did not have a causal nexus to the employee's work. (
Id.
at 297).
The court construes Plaintiffs eighth and ninth causes of action as sounding in direct negligence, rather than vicarious liability. Further, while AltaMed contends that these causes of action are surplusage, this argument was raised for the first time in the reply; as such, it is disregarded. The motion is denied in this regard.
2.
Motion to Strike
AltaMed moves the court for an order striking out the following language from Plaintiffs complaint:
1.
Page 12, paragraph 68, lines 6-12;
2.
Page 13, paragraph 79, lines 9-15;
3.
Page 16, paragraph 102, lines 18-24;
4.
Page 17, paragraph 7, line 13;
5.
Page 17, paragraph 9, line 15;
6.
Page 17, paragraph 10, line 16. AltaMeds request is denied as moot. All of the allegations AltaMed seeks to have stricken pertain to the fifth, sixth and tenth causes of action, which Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss.
Ruling
Thompson, Harry Fayne III vs. Rose, Steven Leon et al
Jul 22, 2024 |
S-CV-0052451
S-CV-0052451 Thompson, Harry Fayne III vs. Rose, Steven Leon et al
No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/14/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6.
Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to
Defendant(s): Grossman, Marilyn Joy
Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Rose, Steven
Leon
Ruling
TODD BERTRANG, ET AL. VS IVORY HOLDINGS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
21STCV42736
Case Number:
21STCV42736
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
S25 Procedural Background Plaintiffs, Todd Bertrang (Bertrang) and Ophie Beltran (Beltran) (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued Defendants, Lido Sailing Club, Inc. (Lido), Ivory Holdings, LLC (Ivory), and Scott Vollero (Vollero) based on injuries Plaintiffs allege they sustained from Bertrangs exposure to hazardous chemicals. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on November 18, 2021, and filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on May 4, 2022. Notably, Plaintiffs did not serve any party prior to filing their FAC, and no party responded to the original complaint. On September 8, 2022, the Court sustained Lido Sailing Club, LLCs demurrer to the FAC with leave to amend. (September 8, 2022 Minute Order.) On September 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC). On October 5, 2022, Lido filed a demurrer to the SAC. Shortly thereafter, the personal injury hub court found the case complicated and transferred it to Long Beach for all further proceedings. On January 12, 2023, Lido re-filed its demurrer to the SAC in Department S27. On June 27, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the demurrer, finding the parties had not adequately met and conferred prior to filing their papers. On July 27, 2023, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On September 20, 2023, rather than amending the SAC, Plaintiffs dismissed Lido from the case. On December 21, 2023, Defendants Ivory Holdings and Vollero filed a demurrer with the motion to strike portions of the SAC. On January 23, 2024, the Court sustained the demurrer with leave to 20 days amend as to the NIED cause of action and alter ego liability cause of action and overruled the strict liability for ultrahazardous activity cause of action, the violation of Health and Safety Code, § 25359.7, cause of action and the IIED cause of action; the Court also granted the motion to strike without leave to amend as to punitive damages and related allegations. (January 23, 2024 Minute Order.) On April 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) more than two months after the Courts January 23 order. Meet and Confer Defendant Volleros counsel states that he sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs counsel on May 17, 2024 detailing issues with the TAC and his availability for a telephonic meet and confer at least 5 days prior to filing the instant motions. (Rasmussen Decl.1, ¶ 5, Exh. B.) Defendant Volleros counsel states that Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to the meet and confer attempt. (Id., at ¶ 6.) In opposition, Plaintiffs counsel argues Defendant Volleros counsel failed to meet and confer because the issues were not discussed in person or by telephone as required under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5. Notwithstanding the parties conflicting ideas of meet and confer, it is very likely an informal attempt to resolve the matter would have been unsuccessful. Analysis 1. Delay in Filing of Third Amended Complaint Code Civ. Proc., § 472b, states that: [w] hen a demurrer to any pleading is sustained or overruled, and time to amend or answer is given, the time so given runs from the service of notice of the decision or order, unless the notice is waived in open court, and the waiver entered in the minutes. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 7:145; Cano v. Glover (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 326, 329-330.) After expiration of the time in which a pleading can be amended as a matter of course, the pleading can only be amended by obtaining the permission of the court. (Leader v. Health Indus. of Am., Inc. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 603, 613.) While a court has discretion to require a noticed motion before permitting a plaintiff to file an amended complaint late, a court also has the discretion to accept a filing without a noticed motion. (Harlan v. Dep't of Transportation (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 868, 873.) The Court exercises its discretion and accepts Plaintiffs untimely filed Third Amended Complaint without a noticed motion. 2. Second Amended Complaint Holding (Alter Ego) On January 23, 2024, Judge Mark Kim sustained Defendant Volleros Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Judge Kim ruled: All claims against Volero are plead on an alter ego theory. Plaintiffs alter ego allegations are found at ¶6 of the SAC, and merely allege that each defendant was acting as the alter ego of each other defendant. Relying on Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Playa del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App. 221, 236, Judge Kim held: Plaintiffs herein failed to allege any of the ultimate facts showing alter ego liability. They failed to allege unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization, etc. Voleros demurrer is therefore sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs must allege ultimate facts showing imposition of liability against Volero would be proper. (See January 23, 2024 Minute Order, Legal Standard on Demurrer, Alter Ego Liability, 3(h)). 3. Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (Alter Ego) A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing partys pleading. It is error for the trial court to sustain a demurrer if the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory, and it is an abuse of discretion for the court to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff has shown there is a reasonable possibility a defect can be cured by amendment. California Logistics, Inc. v. State of California (2008) 161 Cal. App. 4th 242, 247. The burden is on the complainant to show in what manner and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Plaintiffs allegations of alter ego in the TAC are found at ¶ 3 and 6. These allegations are identical to the alter ego allegations found at ¶ 3 and ¶6 of the SAC. No additional facts or allegations have been added by Plaintiffs. As discussed, Judge Kim found those allegations deficient as Plaintiff failed to allege any of the ultimate facts showing alter ego liability and failed to allege unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization. (January 23, 2024 Minute Order). In sum, Plaintiffs completely failed to amend or modify their operative pleading in any manner or in compliance with Judge Kims ruling. In Plaintiffs opposition, Plaintiffs request leave to amend by suggesting three new facts, previously unknown, support the theory of alter ego between Vollero and Ivory Holdings. These facts are: (1) and (2) on August 16, 2016, two separate Deeds of Trust were recorded against the subject premises with Vollero as the Beneficiary and (3) Vollero, as an individual, performed the alleged remediation of the toxic chemicals which are alleged to have harmed Plaintiffs. Assuming the new facts found in Plaintiffs Opposition are true, Plaintiffs have not met their burden demonstrating how or in what manner these new allegations support of finding that a reasonable possibility exist for Plaintiffs to cure the defects and successfully pled a theory of alter ego. (Reeder v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 795, 805.) These additional facts show no connection between Vollero and Ivory Holdings. Even with the inclusion of those three allegations, Plaintiffs operative pleading would fail to allege any of the ultimate facts showing an alter ego theory as set forth in Rutherford (e.g. allegations of unity of interest, domination and control, inadequate capitalization). 4. Ruling The Court sustains Defendant Volleros Demurrer without leave to amend. Defendant Volleros motion to strike is now moot.
Ruling
Luis Kutz, et al vs Jennifer Fribourgh, et al
Jul 11, 2024 |
23CV01711
23CV01711
KUTZ et al. v. FRIBOURGH et al.
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED
The unopposed motions are denied without prejudice. Counsel must refile to reflect
correct upcoming hearing dates in the declarations and proposed orders.
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order
incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the
tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in
accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the
prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is
simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of
sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Page 1 of 1
Ruling
Dryden, Donna vs Tri Counties Bank
Jul 10, 2024 |
23CV03115
23CV03115 Dryden, Donna et al. v. Tri Counties Bank
EVENT: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Interim Class Counsel
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate and Appoint Interim Class Counsel is GRANTED. Defendant
shall file a responsive pleading within 60 days of the date of this order. The Court will sign the
proposed order with the noted modification.
Document
Patrick Strickland v. W.I.P. Club, Inc., Barry Mullineaux, Collective Hardware, Inc., John Bakhishi, Lina Kay, Hirukuni Sai, John C. Best, Frank Porco, Merlin Bobb-Willis, 150 Rft Varick Corp., 150 Rft Varick Basement Llc, W. & M. Operating, L.L.C., Aubrey Graham Drake a/k/a DRAKE, Allstar Security & Consulting, Inc., Christopher Maurice Brown a/k/a CHRIS BROWN
Apr 08, 2013 |
Anil Singh
|
Tort |
Tort |
153185/2013
Document
Melania Rodriguez and RYAN LUNT, as Parents and Natural Guardians of Z.L, Melania Rodriguez, Ryan Lunt Individually v. Nicholas James Buffin M.D., Valerie Lewis-Morris M.D., Emily Schmidt-Beuchat M.D., Hope S. Langer M.D., Youyin Choy M.D., Lois Brustman M.D., Susan Rothenberg M.D., Helaine Worrell M.D., Mount Sinai West, West Care Medical, P.C.,, Faculty Practice Associates-Mount Sinai Hospital,, Midtown Ob/Gyn
Mar 15, 2021 |
John J. Kelley
|
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice |
805086/2021
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 EXHIBIT C FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK GREGORY WELCH and PRISCILLA WELCH, Index No.: 162502/2015 Plaintiff, HANES SUPPLY. INC'S RESPONSES3TO v. SKYLIFT'S COMBINED FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR 260-261 MADISON AVENUE LLC, SKYLIFT DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION CONTRACTOR CORP., BAY CRANE SERVICE INC., Defendants. SKYLIFT CONTRACTOR CORP., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., d/b/a MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TESTING SOLUTIONS; MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TESTING SOLUTIONS; HANES SUPPLY, INC., as successor-by-merger to and/or d/b/a PAUL'S WIRE ROPE & SLING; and PAUL'S WIRE ROPE & SLING, Third-Party Defendants. 260-261 MADISON AVENUE LLC., Second Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., d/b/a MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TESTING SOLUTIONS; MARINE & INDUSTRIAL TESTING SOLUTIONS; HANES SUPPLY, INC., as successor-by-merger to and/ord/b/a PAUL'S FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 PAUL' WIRE ROPE & SLING; and S W1RE ROPE & SLING. Second Third-Party Defendants. SKYLIFT CONTRACTOR CORP., Third Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, CORP., Third Defendants. Third-Party Defendant/Third-Party Defendant, HANES SUPPLY, INC. ("Hanes"), by and through their attorneys, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, as and fortheir response to the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Skylift Contractor Corp.'s ("Skylift") Combined First Requests" Interrogatories and Requests for Discovery and Inspection ("Discovery or "Requests") dated February 21, 2019 allege upon information and belief as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Hanes relies upon each of the General Objections stated below as though fully set forth herein in response to each Interrogatory. Hanes reserves the right to amend, modify, or supple-ent the objections and responses stated herein to the extent required and/or permitted under the New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules. Answers to these Interrogatories are based upon information known to Hanes at this time Hanes' and are made without prejudice to right to supplement. Hanes reserves the right to rely on any documents or evidence that may develop or come to itsattention at a later date. Pradnetion of 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 any information subject to stated objections does not constitute a waiver of Hanes right to dispute discovery concerning other information. Production of information does not constitute a waiver of Hanes' right to object to its admissibility. Hanes reserves the right to amend its answers to these Interrogatories, as well as to object to the competency, relevance, materiality, and admissibility of same. GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 1. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Reqüésts to the extent that they seek to alter, expand or otherwise modify the obligations, requirements and definitions imposed by the New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules. 2. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or any other applicable privileges or that has been prepared in anticipation of litigation and at the request of counsel. 3. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek the identification and production of information and documentation not in the possession, custody, or control of Hanes, and are therefore beyond the scope of discovery allowed under applicable rules. 4. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek discovery of information or documents already within the possession or control of Skylift, including but not limited to publicly-available information, on the grounds that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive. 5. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent they are cumulative and duplicative of other requests contained therein. 6. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they are vague, 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 ambiguous, overly broad, unlimited in time, irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, speculative, conclusory, unduly burdensome, oppressive, argumentative and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek confidential personal, commercial, business, financial, proprietary or competitively sensitive information. 8. Hanes objects to Skylift's Discovery Requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of private and confidential information relating to third parties not subject to this suit or make inquiries about matters the disclosure of which is prohibited by statute, regulation or other applicable law. 9. The inadvertent production of any privileged document shall not be deemed a waiver of any applicable privilege with respect to that document or any other document or information. 10. By respeñdiñg to Skylift's Discovery Requests, Hanes does not concede that any of the information requested is relevant to the subject matter of this action, is caleülated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or is evidence that may properly be considered for any motion or at trial.Hanes expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery into the subject matter of the Discovery Requests and the right to object to the introductiõñ into evidence of any of information provided in response to the Discovery Requests, whether in motion practice or at trial. 11. Any reference to a document coñtaiñed in the responses shall not be deemed to be an admission that any particular copy of the document is authentic or genuine, nor shall it be deemed an admiscian of the relevañce or admissibility of the document. Hanes reserves the right 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 to object to the authenticity, relevance and admissibility of allsuch documents referred to in the responses to the Discovery Requests. 12. Any response made by Hanes is for the purpose of the pending action only and is notefor any other purpose, nor may itbe used against Hanes in any other proceeding. 13. Hanes reserves the right to supplement this response and to raise any additional objections deemed necessary and appropriate in light of the results of any further review. The foregoing general objections are incorporated by reference into the following specific objections and responses, and any objection or response by Hanes to any Discovery Request below is made without waiver of, and subject to, these gêñeral objections. In the event any information falling within one or more of these objections is disclosed in these responses, the disclosure is inadvertent and shall not constitute a waiver of the objections. ANSWERS TO DOCUMENT REOUESTS 1. State the actual date of the closing of the purchase by Hanes of the assets of Paul's Wire pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the graüñds that it vague, smug;c;a, and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving the foregaing objectians and the General Objections set forth Hanes' above, response is: January 2, 2013. Additionally, see documcats produced herein, bate stamped Hanes0001-Hanes0043. Hanes reserves the right to amend/supplement this response as discovery continues. 2. (a) Identify the inventories, including supplies, spare parts and raw materials, that Hanes acquired from Paul's Wire; and (b) produce copies of all documents concerning the acquisition of those assets. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportionate to the needs of this case, and not reasonably "Identify" calculated to lead to the discavery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the term is overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 Subject to and without waiving the forq:i:¡;; objections and the General Objections set forth above, see documents preduced herein, bate stamped Hanes0044-Hanes0072. Hanes reserves the right to amend this response as discovery continues. 3. (a) Identify the 1000 Ton Press, two small ESCO Presses, Dies, two Coiling Machines, Saw, Office Equipment, Furniture, 2001 Truck and 2000 Chevrolet S10 Pick Up Truck that Hanes acquired from Paul's Wire; and (b) produce copies of all documents concerning the acquisition of those assets. RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorparates its objections and itsresponse to Request No. 2. 4. (a) Identify the Racks, Shelving and Pallet Racks that Hanes acquired from Paul's Wire; and (b) produce copies of alldocuments concerning the acquisition of those assets. RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorporates its objections and itsresponse to Request No. 2. 5. (a) Identify allpersons on behalf of Hanes who obtained access to the premises and operations of Paul's Wire pursuant to paragraph 4.1 of the Asset Purchase Agreement; and (b) produce copies of all documents concerning the access they obtained. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that itis overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not proportionate to the needs of this case. Hanes further cbjects to this Request on the grounds that itis beyond the permissible scope of discovery, premature, and exceeds Skylift's reasêñshls need for information in order to address the specified allegations. 6. all doc-+= the customers and accounts receivable of (a) Identify concerning Paul's Wire that were provided to Hanes at or prior to the closing; and (b) produce copies of all such documents. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and not proportianate to the needs of this case. Hanes further objects to this Request on the grounds that it isbeyañd the permissible scope of discovery, premature, and exceeds Skylift's reaeenable need for information in order to address the specified allegations. 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 Subject to and without waiving the foregaing objections and the General Objections set forth above, see documents predüced herein, bate stamped Hanes0073. Hanes reserves the right to amend/supplement this response as discovery continues. 7. Identify (a) alllists of payers of the accounts receivable of Paul's Wire that Hanes provided monthly to Paul's Wire and/or Paul Cianciola; (b) all documents concerning communications between Hanes and the customers of Paul's Wire coñcemiñg the efforts of Hanes to collect the accounts receivable of Paul's Wire and the payment by customers of accounts receivable; and (c)produce copies of all such documents. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, c-..tig,ssus, and not proportionate to the needs of this case. Hanes further objects to this Request on the grounds that it isbeyond the permissible scope of discovery, premature, and exceeds Skylift's reasonable need for information in order to address the specified allegations. Subject to and without waiving the faregaing objections and the General Objections set forth above, see documents produced herein, bate stamped Hanes 0073. Hanes reserves the right to amend/supplement this response as discovery continues. 8. Identify the premises at which Paul's Wire condüeted its business in Branford, Connecticut. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that itis vague, c:±fg;aüs, and not proportionate to the needs of this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the General objections set forth Hanes' above, response is:4 Indian Neck Avenue, Milford, CT 06405. 9. (a) State whether Hanes, at any time after the closing, conducted business at the premises at which Paul's Wire formerly conducted itsbusiness in Branford, Connecticut. If so,(b) state the dates on which Hanes conducted business at such premises and whether Hanes currently conducts business there; and (c) identify and produce copies of all leases concerning those premises. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it isvague, an±!gacüs, not 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 proportionate to the needs of this case, and beyond the permissible scope of discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregaing 0bjections and the General Objections set forth Hanes' above, response is:(a) January 2, 2013; (b) Hanes continues to cesduct business at 4 Indian Neck Avenue, Milford, CT 06405; (c) Additionally,see doesmêsts produced herein, hate stamped Hanes0001-Hanes0043. Hanes reserves the right to amend/supplement this response as discovery continues. 10. (a) State whether Hanes, at any times after the closing, conducted business under Sling" Wire." the name "Paul's Wire Rope & or any other name containing the words "Paul's If so, (b) state the dates on which Hanes conducted the business using such name(s) and whether Hanes currently conducts business using those name(s); and (c) describe and produce copies of all documents concerning any signage at such premises. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, not proportionate to the needs of this case, and beycad the permi••ihie scope of discovery. Hanes further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks information and/or documents that is or may be confidential and/or proprietary, or otherwise constitutes a trade secret. 11. If the answer to question 10(a) is in the affirmative, (a) state whether Hanes had a policy or custom and practice of communicatiñg to the former customers of Paul's Wire that Hanes Sling" was doing the business under the name "Paul's Wire Rope & or any other name containing the words "Paul's Wire"; (b) identify and produce all documents concerning that or custom policy and practice; (c) desc1ibe alloral communications between Hanes and former customers of Paul?s Wire concerning the fact that Hanes was doing business under the name "Paul's Wire Rope & Sling" Wire." or any other name containing the words "Paul's RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorporates its objections and its response to Request No. 10. 12. If the answer to question 10(a) is in the affirmative, identify and produce copies of (a) alladvertising or promotion of the business of Hanes conducted under the name "Paul's Wire Sling" Wire," Rope & or any other name containing the words "Paul's iñc1üding allpates owned 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 or controlled by Hanes, any social media pages owned or controlled by Hanes, any advertisement in traditional or on-line newspapers, magazines or other mass media, any circulars or fliers distributed by mail or in any other manner; (b) all fonn receipts, invoices, letter heads, email signature blocks, and other documents u3ed by Hanes in connection with itsbusiness under such name. RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorporates itsobjections and its response to Request No. 10. 13. Ifthe answer to question 10(a) is in the affirmative, (a) identify all suppliers of Paul's Wire with whom Hanes obtained supplies at any time for the business itconducted under Sling" the name "Paul's Wire Rope & or any other name contained the words "Paul's Wire"; (b) states the dates on which Hanes obtained supplies from each of those suppliers and whether it continues to do so; (c) statewhether Hanes had a policy or custom and practice of communicating to the former suppliers of Paul's Wire that Hanes was doing business under that name; (b)identify and produce all documents concerning that policy or custom and practice; (c) describe all oral communications between Hanes and former suppliers of Paul's Wire cõüceniing the fact that Hanes was doing business under that name. RESPONSE: Hanes hereby incorporates its chjectisas and itsresponse to Request No. 10. 14. a) State whether Paul R. Cianciola at any time bec[a]me an employee of Hanes. If so, (b) state the dates of his employment and whether he continues to be so employed; (c) ifnot so employed, set forth his last known residence address, (d) state alljob titlesheld by Ciancicia at Hanes, the dates he held such title,and describe his respoñsibilities under each such title. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, not proportionate to the needs of this case, and beyond the permissible scope of discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and the General Objections set forth Hanes' above, response is: 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 (a) Paul R. Cianciola is an êmployee of Hanes; 2013 - (b) January 2, present; (c) Not applicable; (d) Outside Sales Associate; (e) Hanes is not in possession of document(s) responsive to this request. 15. a) Identify any other former employees, officers, or directors of Paul's Wire who at any time became employees of Hanes. For each such person, (b) state the dates of his/her employment and whether he/she continues to be employed; (c) ifnot so employed, set forth his/her last known residence address; (d) state alljob titles held by each such person at Hanes, the dates he/she held each such title, and describe his/her responsibilities under each such title; and (e) produce copies of all employment contracts between Hanes and each such person. RESPONSE: Hanes objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, amingucus, not proportionate to the needs of this case, and beyond the permlssible scope of discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing abjections and the General Objections set forth Hanes' above, response is: (a) Paul Cianciola, Jr.; 2013 - (b) January 2, February 18, 2013; (c) 11 Circle Drive, Branford CT 06405; (d) General Manager.; (e) Hanes is not in possession of document(s) responsive to this request. (a) Bruce Vetre; October 2007 - (b) 8, Present; (c) Not applicable; (d) Sales, Book keeping, Admin.; (e) Hanes is not in põssession of document(s) responsive to this request. (a) Richard Adams; April 1989 - (b) Present; (c) Not applicable; (d) Shop Worker; 10 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 (e) Hanes is not in possession of document(s) responsive to this request. (a) David Mullen; 2010 - (b) January 11, Present; (c) Not applicable; (d) Sales, Book keeping, Admin.; (e) Hanes is not in possessics of document(s) responsive to this request. Hanes reserves the right to amend/supplement this response as discõvery continues. Dated: June 21, 2019 Harrison, New York Respectfully Submitted, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP By /s/ Gregory Picciano Gregory R. Picciano epiccianod yersm,com 500 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 503 Harrison, NY 10528 Phone: (914) 777-2210 Counsel for Defendant/Third-Party Defendant Hanes Supply, Inc. To: KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff SKYLIFT CONTRACTOR CORP. 20th 40 Exchange Place, FlOOr New York, New York 10005 Attn: Scott E. Miller, Esq. (212) 485-9600 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 Jay H. Tanenbaum LAW OFFICE OF JAY H. TANENBAUM Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 Wall Street. Suite 5F New York, NY 10005 LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP Attorneys for Defendant/Second Third-Party Plaintiff 260-261 MADISON AVENUE, LLC. 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2104 New York, New York 10170 Dennis Dozis, Esq. CASCONE & KLUEPFEL, LLP Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 1399 Franklin Avenue, Suite 302 Garden City, New York 11530 (516) 747-1990 File No.: 04584DZB MILLER ZUCKER & SHARFSTEIN, LLP Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. 1201 RXR Plaza Uniondale, New York 11556 Brian P Walsh, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. 2555 Grand Blyd, Kansas City, Missouri 64108 Cary Maynard, Esq. SARETSKY KATZ & DRANOFF, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs on the Counter Claims Gregory Welch and Priscilla Welch 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 t 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/15/2019 04:35 PM INDEX NO. 162502/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 257 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/15/2019 ., WPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK C : COUN1Y OF NEW YORK Plaintitt , -agafma- Index No.: 162502/2015 260-261MADISONAVENUELLC SKYl.IFT CONTRACTOR CORP.andBAYCRANESERVICEINC, 4 Defendants. . gg SKYLIFTCONTRACTORCORP., . Plamuff. Tlúrd-Pany MARINE& INDUSTRIALSUPPLYCOMPANY.INC.,dha MARINE& !NDUSTRIALTESTINGSOLUTIONS: TESTING MARINE& INDUSTRIAL toand/ord HANESSUPPLY,INC..anwccessor-hy-merger SOLUTIONS: aPAUL'S WIREROPE& SLING;andPAUL·SWIREROPEA SLING, 1 Defendant Tierd-Party 260-261MADISONAVENUE ., . SreorxiT1ürd-Pany Plaintiff, -agafr MARINE& INDUSTRIALSUPPLYCOMPANY,INC, daMARINE& INDUSTRIAL MARINE& INDUSTRIALTESTING TESTINOSOLUTIONS; toand/ordWaPAUL'S HANESSUPPLY,INC.,asauccessor-by-merger SOLUTIONS: WAREROPE& SLING;andPAUL'SWIREROPE& SLING, Second PanyDeferulants. . SKYLIFTCONTRACTORCORP, Thin!Ttúrd-Pany PlaindtT JOHNSONCONTRO LS.INC., llurd ildrd - PanyDefendants. , HANES SUPPLY, INC S RESPONSES TO SKYLiliT'S COMBINED FIRST INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION GORDONREESSCULLYMANSUKHANI, LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT HANES SUPPLY, INC. 500 MamarOneck Avenue, Suite 503 Harrison, NY 10528 (914) 777-2225