On July 14, 2018 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ellyn Berk,
Pamela Goldstein,
Paul Benjamin,
Tony Berk,
and
Houlihan Lawrence Inc.,
for Commercial Division
in the District Court of Westchester County.
Preview
DELBELLODONNELLANWEINGARTEN
WISE&WIEDERKEHR, LLP
Alfred E. Donnellan COUNSELLORS AT LAW
aed dd v-law.com THE GATEWAY BUILDING
ONE NORTH LEXINGTON AVENUE
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601
(914) 681-0200
FACSIMILE (914) 684-0288
March 13, 2020
V_ia NYSCEF
Hon Linda S. Jamieson
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Westchester County
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
Re: Goldstein et al. v. Houlihan/Lawrence Inc.
No. 60767/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty.)
Dear Justice Jamieson:
We represent Defendant Houlihan Lawrence in the above-referenced action. We write in
Plaintiffs'
response to February 25, 2020 correspondence requesting a pre-motion conference to
seek leave to move for an order adopting the three reports and recommendations of Discovery
Referee William P. Harrington. Defendant has no objection to the First and Second Report and
Recommendation, subject to the discussion held on the record. Specifically, Defendant noted its
understanding that the Second Report and Recommendation comprised the universe of remaining
discovery on class certification issues.
Defendant does not object to the Third Report and Recommendation as itrelates to the
subpoena to be served on former employee James Gricar. Although Defendant continues to view
certain categories of discovery set forth therein as overbroad and irrelevant, since Mr. Gricar is a
third party likely to have limited responsive information in any event, Defendant will not spend
the Court's time fighting those issues. Defendant is concerned, however, that Plaintiffs have
already sought to use the Third Report and Recommendation, which addressed only discovery
sought from Mr. Gricar, to expand discovery from Houlihan beyond the discrete, remaining
topics contemplated by the Second Report and Recommendation. To the extent the Court adopts
the Third Report and Recommendation, it should do so with the caveat that the discovery rulings
set forth therein apply only to the Gricar subpoena to which they are addressed and do not define
the universe of discovery in the case more broadly.
Sincerely,
Alfred . Donnellan
Document Filed Date
March 13, 2020
Case Filing Date
July 14, 2018
Category
Commercial Division
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
DELBELLODONNELLANWEINGARTEN WISE&WIEDERKEHR, LLP Alfred E. Donnellan COUNSELLORS AT LAW aed dd v-law.com THE GATEWAY BUILDING ONE NORTH LEXINGTON AVENUE WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601 (914) 681-0200 FACSIMILE (914) 684-0288 March 13, 2020 V_ia NYSCEF Hon Linda S. Jamieson Supreme Court of the State of New York Westchester County 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. White Plains, N.Y. 10601 Re: Goldstein et al. v. Houlihan/Lawrence Inc. No. 60767/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester Cty.) Dear Justice Jamieson: We represent Defendant Houlihan Lawrence in the above-referenced action. We write in Plaintiffs' response to February 25, 2020 correspondence requesting a pre-motion conference to seek leave to move for an order adopting the three reports and recommendations of Discovery Referee William P. Harrington. Defendant has no objection to the First and Second Report and Recommendation, subject to the discussion held on the record. Specifically, Defendant noted its understanding that the Second Report and Recommendation comprised the universe of remaining discovery on class certification issues. Defendant does not object to the Third Report and Recommendation as itrelates to the subpoena to be served on former employee James Gricar. Although Defendant continues to view certain categories of discovery set forth therein as overbroad and irrelevant, since Mr. Gricar is a third party likely to have limited responsive information in any event, Defendant will not spend the Court's time fighting those issues. Defendant is concerned, however, that Plaintiffs have already sought to use the Third Report and Recommendation, which addressed only discovery sought from Mr. Gricar, to expand discovery from Houlihan beyond the discrete, remaining topics contemplated by the Second Report and Recommendation. To the extent the Court adopts the Third Report and Recommendation, it should do so with the caveat that the discovery rulings set forth therein apply only to the Gricar subpoena to which they are addressed and do not define the universe of discovery in the case more broadly. Sincerely, Alfred . Donnellan