Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
HOULIHAN LAWRENCE
MOTION TO AMEND CLASS DEFINITION
EXHIBIT 7
Plaintiffs’ Responses and Objections to
Defendant’s First Merits Set of Interrogatories
Any redactions have been applied pursuant to the so-ordered Thirteenth Report and
Recommendation, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1075, 1083
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
PAMELA GOLDSTEIN,
ELLYN & TONY BERK, as Administrators
Index No. 60767/2018
of the Estate of Winifred Berk, and
PAUL BENJAMIN, on behalf of Hon. Linda S. Jamieson
themselves and all others similarly
situated, PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES AND
Plaintiffs, OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT’S FIRST MERITS
v. SET OF INTERROGATORIES
HOULIHAN/LAWRENCE INC.,
Defendant.
Pursuant to CPLR 3133, plaintiffs Pamela Goldstein, Ellyn and Tony Berk as
Administrators of the Estate of Winifred Berk, and Paul Benjamin (“Plaintiffs”), on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby respond and object to
Defendant's First Merits Set of Interrogatories, dated March 21, 2022 (the
“Interrogatories,” and each individual request therein an “Interrogatory”).
GENERAL RESPONSES
The following general responses apply to all of the Interrogatories.
1. Plaintiffs base their responses on information reasonably available to
them at this time. Discovery in this matter is ongoing, additional information might
affect Plaintiffs’ responses, and Plaintiffs’ preparation for trial is not yet complete.
Plaintiffs’ responses are given without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to modify,
amend, or supplement each such response, whether in the form of supplemental
responses hereto or through submissions at or prior to trial, if Plaintiffs change
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
their interpretation of any Interrogatory, in light of additional discovery, further
analysis, or for any other reason when and if necessary.
2. Plaintiffs make their responses without waiving the right to object on
any ground to the use of these responses in this lawsuit or in any administrative
action, investigation, proceeding, or other litigation, including in the trial of this or
any other case. A response does not imply an agreement or concession that the
response is relevant to, or admissible in, this proceeding.
3. A response by Plaintiffs to an Interrogatory is not a representation
that Plaintiffs adopt, accept, affirm, or admit the assertions, contentions,
characterizations, instructions, or definitions used or made in connection with the
Interrogatory.
RECURRING OBJECTIONS
Plaintiffs make the following objections with respect to the Interrogatories,
and incorporate them by reference into each response as if set forth fully therein.
By responding to any Interrogatory or failing to specifically refer to or specify any
particular Recurring Objection in response to a particular Interrogatory, Plaintiffs
do not intend to waive any of these Recurring Objections, nor admit or concede the
appropriateness of any purported Interrogatory or any assumptions contained
therein.
1. Plaintiffs object to any Interrogatory, instruction, definition, and rule
of construction to the extent it seeks to impose upon Plaintiffs obligations greater
than those required by applicable law and rules.
2
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
2. Plaintiffs object to any Interrogatory to the extent it seeks to impose
upon Plaintiffs obligations greater than those Defendant undertook in responding to
Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
3. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it requests
information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine,
the joint-defense or common-interest privilege, or any other applicable privilege,
immunity, or protection.
4. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
information containing or concerning communications between Plaintiffs and their
attorneys or confidential communications between representatives or agents of
Plaintiffs and their attorneys made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of
professional legal services to Plaintiffs, because such information is protected by the
attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege.
5. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
information containing or constituting the work product of Plaintiffs’ attorneys.
6. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information containing or constituting the identity of, mental impressions of,
facts known to or opinions held by any expert consultant who has been retained or
specifically employed by Plaintiffs.
7. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it states or seeks a
legal conclusion.
3
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
8. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information that is not material to class certification or the prosecution or defense
of any claim, is not confined to the relevant issues in this case, is beyond the scope
of the pleadings, is irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, or is not
reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of relevant admissible evidence.
9. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it is unlimited in
time or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to this litigation and to the
issues involved in this case on the grounds that such requests seek documents or
information neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information that is not reasonably available to Plaintiffs.
11. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information that cannot be located after a reasonable search.
12. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure
of information that is public, already in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control,
or otherwise readily available to Defendant.
13. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it is vague,
ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome.
14. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous to the
extent it uses undefined terms that are not commonly well understood.
4
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
15. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks “all”
documents, or “all” information, or “all” requests, on the grounds that such a
request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not within the scope of reasonable
discovery.
16. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it requires or
purports to require Plaintiffs to make a special study, perform any calculations or
produce data or documentary information in a format other than that maintained
by Plaintiffs in the ordinary course.
17. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
information outside the scope and in contravention of applicable law and rules.
18. Plaintiffs object to Definition No. 10 (“Document” or “documents”) as
exceeding the permissible scope of discovery.
INTERROGATORIES
MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Each Named Plaintiff is to provide an
exact computation of each category of damage alleged as to that Named Plaintiff,
including the exact dollar amount of damages he or she seeks in this matter and a
Description of how such dollar amount was calculated.
RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product
doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or
legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to
5
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery.
Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent it prematurely seeks
information that will be the subject of expert discovery.
Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that
Plaintiff Pamela Goldstein seeks recovery of not less than $12,740 but up to $31,850
in sales commissions and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence wrongfully
obtained in connection with its undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agency in
connection with her purchase of the property located at 6 Wellington Terrace, White
Plains, New York 10607; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; costs and
expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
punitive damages.
Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that
Plaintiffs Ellyn Berk and Tony Berk seek recovery of not less than $14,370 but up to
$23,950 in sales commissions and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence
wrongfully obtained in connection with its undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agency
in connection with their sale, as Administrators of the Estate of Winifred Berk, of
the property located at 190 Davis Avenue, White Plains, New York 10605; pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest; costs and expenses to which Plaintiffs are
entitled, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages.
Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that
Plaintiff Paul Benjamin seeks recovery of not less than $40,000 but up to $80,000 in
sales commissions and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence wrongfully
6
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
obtained in connection with its undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agency in
connection with his purchase of the property located at 16 Old Logging Road,
Bedford, New York 10506; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; costs and
expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
punitive damages.
MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify and Describe a computation
of damage alleged for seller-class-members, including a Description of your
proposed damage calculation methodology.
RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product
doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or
legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery.
Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent it prematurely seeks
information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without
waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that seller-class-members seek
recovery of not less than the listing-side sales commission but up to the entire sales
commission and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence wrongfully obtained in
connection with the undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agent transactions that are
the subject of the Third Amended Complaint; pre-judgment and post-judgment
7
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
interest; costs and expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including reasonable
attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages.
MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify and Describe a computation
of damage alleged for buyer-class-members, including a Description of your
proposed damage calculation methodology.
RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product
doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or
legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery.
Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent it prematurely seeks
information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without
waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that buyer-class-members seek
recovery of not less than the sale-side (buy side) sales commissions but up to the
entire sales commissions and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence
wrongfully obtained in connection with the undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agent
transactions that are the subject of the Third Amended Complaint; pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest; costs and expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages.
8
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
MERIT INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify and Describe any variation in
your computation of damage alleged arising from transaction in which an in house
bonus was paid.
RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product
doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or
legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery.
Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it prematurely seeks
information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without
waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that all class members seek the
recovery described in response to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3 whether or not
Houlihan Lawrence paid an In-House Bonus in connection with their transactions.
MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify and Describe your
computation of damage alleged as to buyer customers, in light of Mr. Cusack’s
sworn statement that Houlihan Lawrence “had no agency relationship” with “buyer
customers.”
RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 5 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product
doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or
9
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to
Interrogatory No. 5 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery.
Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 5 to the extent it prematurely seeks
information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without
waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that they seek the recovery described
in response to Interrogatory Nos. 2-4 on behalf of all Class members, including but
not necessarily limited to those identified by Houlihan Lawrence on April 6, 2022.
Dated: April 11, 2022
New York, New York
By: /s/ Jeremy Vest
Jeremy Vest, Esq.
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
Chrysler Center
666 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
William S. Ohlemeyer, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
To: Alfred E. Donnellan
Nelida Lara
DELBELLO DONNELLAN
WEINGARTEN & WIEDERKEHR, LLP
One North Lexington Avenue
11th Floor
White Plains, NY 10601
10
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022
Robert D. MacGill (Pro Hac Vice)
Matthew Ciulla (Pro Hac Vice)d
MACGILL P.C.
156 E. Market Street
Suite 1200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Attorneys for Defendant
11
Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 HOULIHAN LAWRENCE MOTION TO AMEND CLASS DEFINITION EXHIBIT 7 Plaintiffs’ Responses and Objections to Defendant’s First Merits Set of Interrogatories Any redactions have been applied pursuant to the so-ordered Thirteenth Report and Recommendation, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1075, 1083 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER PAMELA GOLDSTEIN, ELLYN & TONY BERK, as Administrators Index No. 60767/2018 of the Estate of Winifred Berk, and PAUL BENJAMIN, on behalf of Hon. Linda S. Jamieson themselves and all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES AND Plaintiffs, OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST MERITS v. SET OF INTERROGATORIES HOULIHAN/LAWRENCE INC., Defendant. Pursuant to CPLR 3133, plaintiffs Pamela Goldstein, Ellyn and Tony Berk as Administrators of the Estate of Winifred Berk, and Paul Benjamin (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, hereby respond and object to Defendant's First Merits Set of Interrogatories, dated March 21, 2022 (the “Interrogatories,” and each individual request therein an “Interrogatory”). GENERAL RESPONSES The following general responses apply to all of the Interrogatories. 1. Plaintiffs base their responses on information reasonably available to them at this time. Discovery in this matter is ongoing, additional information might affect Plaintiffs’ responses, and Plaintiffs’ preparation for trial is not yet complete. Plaintiffs’ responses are given without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to modify, amend, or supplement each such response, whether in the form of supplemental responses hereto or through submissions at or prior to trial, if Plaintiffs change FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 their interpretation of any Interrogatory, in light of additional discovery, further analysis, or for any other reason when and if necessary. 2. Plaintiffs make their responses without waiving the right to object on any ground to the use of these responses in this lawsuit or in any administrative action, investigation, proceeding, or other litigation, including in the trial of this or any other case. A response does not imply an agreement or concession that the response is relevant to, or admissible in, this proceeding. 3. A response by Plaintiffs to an Interrogatory is not a representation that Plaintiffs adopt, accept, affirm, or admit the assertions, contentions, characterizations, instructions, or definitions used or made in connection with the Interrogatory. RECURRING OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs make the following objections with respect to the Interrogatories, and incorporate them by reference into each response as if set forth fully therein. By responding to any Interrogatory or failing to specifically refer to or specify any particular Recurring Objection in response to a particular Interrogatory, Plaintiffs do not intend to waive any of these Recurring Objections, nor admit or concede the appropriateness of any purported Interrogatory or any assumptions contained therein. 1. Plaintiffs object to any Interrogatory, instruction, definition, and rule of construction to the extent it seeks to impose upon Plaintiffs obligations greater than those required by applicable law and rules. 2 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 2. Plaintiffs object to any Interrogatory to the extent it seeks to impose upon Plaintiffs obligations greater than those Defendant undertook in responding to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. 3. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the joint-defense or common-interest privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. 4. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information containing or concerning communications between Plaintiffs and their attorneys or confidential communications between representatives or agents of Plaintiffs and their attorneys made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to Plaintiffs, because such information is protected by the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege. 5. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information containing or constituting the work product of Plaintiffs’ attorneys. 6. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information containing or constituting the identity of, mental impressions of, facts known to or opinions held by any expert consultant who has been retained or specifically employed by Plaintiffs. 7. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it states or seeks a legal conclusion. 3 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 8. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information that is not material to class certification or the prosecution or defense of any claim, is not confined to the relevant issues in this case, is beyond the scope of the pleadings, is irrelevant to the subject matter of this action, or is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of relevant admissible evidence. 9. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it is unlimited in time or otherwise not limited to a time frame relevant to this litigation and to the issues involved in this case on the grounds that such requests seek documents or information neither relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 10. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information that is not reasonably available to Plaintiffs. 11. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information that cannot be located after a reasonable search. 12. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of information that is public, already in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, or otherwise readily available to Defendant. 13. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. 14. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous to the extent it uses undefined terms that are not commonly well understood. 4 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 15. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks “all” documents, or “all” information, or “all” requests, on the grounds that such a request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not within the scope of reasonable discovery. 16. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it requires or purports to require Plaintiffs to make a special study, perform any calculations or produce data or documentary information in a format other than that maintained by Plaintiffs in the ordinary course. 17. Plaintiffs object to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information outside the scope and in contravention of applicable law and rules. 18. Plaintiffs object to Definition No. 10 (“Document” or “documents”) as exceeding the permissible scope of discovery. INTERROGATORIES MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Each Named Plaintiff is to provide an exact computation of each category of damage alleged as to that Named Plaintiff, including the exact dollar amount of damages he or she seeks in this matter and a Description of how such dollar amount was calculated. RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to 5 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent it prematurely seeks information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that Plaintiff Pamela Goldstein seeks recovery of not less than $12,740 but up to $31,850 in sales commissions and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence wrongfully obtained in connection with its undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agency in connection with her purchase of the property located at 6 Wellington Terrace, White Plains, New York 10607; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; costs and expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages. Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that Plaintiffs Ellyn Berk and Tony Berk seek recovery of not less than $14,370 but up to $23,950 in sales commissions and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence wrongfully obtained in connection with its undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agency in connection with their sale, as Administrators of the Estate of Winifred Berk, of the property located at 190 Davis Avenue, White Plains, New York 10605; pre- judgment and post-judgment interest; costs and expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages. Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that Plaintiff Paul Benjamin seeks recovery of not less than $40,000 but up to $80,000 in sales commissions and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence wrongfully 6 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 obtained in connection with its undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agency in connection with his purchase of the property located at 16 Old Logging Road, Bedford, New York 10506; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; costs and expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages. MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify and Describe a computation of damage alleged for seller-class-members, including a Description of your proposed damage calculation methodology. RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 2 to the extent it prematurely seeks information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that seller-class-members seek recovery of not less than the listing-side sales commission but up to the entire sales commission and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence wrongfully obtained in connection with the undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agent transactions that are the subject of the Third Amended Complaint; pre-judgment and post-judgment 7 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 interest; costs and expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages. MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify and Describe a computation of damage alleged for buyer-class-members, including a Description of your proposed damage calculation methodology. RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 3 to the extent it prematurely seeks information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that buyer-class-members seek recovery of not less than the sale-side (buy side) sales commissions but up to the entire sales commissions and other monies or benefits Houlihan Lawrence wrongfully obtained in connection with the undisclosed, non-consensual dual-agent transactions that are the subject of the Third Amended Complaint; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; costs and expenses to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and punitive damages. 8 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 MERIT INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Identify and Describe any variation in your computation of damage alleged arising from transaction in which an in house bonus was paid. RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 4 to the extent it prematurely seeks information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that all class members seek the recovery described in response to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3 whether or not Houlihan Lawrence paid an In-House Bonus in connection with their transactions. MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify and Describe your computation of damage alleged as to buyer customers, in light of Mr. Cusack’s sworn statement that Houlihan Lawrence “had no agency relationship” with “buyer customers.” RESPONSE TO MERITS INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 5 to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client, joint-defense, or common-interest privilege, the work product doctrine, information respecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or 9 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 legal theories of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, or legal contentions. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 5 to the extent it seeks information that is exempt from discovery. Plaintiffs object to Interrogatory No. 5 to the extent it prematurely seeks information that will be the subject of expert discovery. Subject to and without waiver of their objections, Plaintiffs respond that they seek the recovery described in response to Interrogatory Nos. 2-4 on behalf of all Class members, including but not necessarily limited to those identified by Houlihan Lawrence on April 6, 2022. Dated: April 11, 2022 New York, New York By: /s/ Jeremy Vest Jeremy Vest, Esq. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. Chrysler Center 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 William S. Ohlemeyer, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Attorneys for Plaintiffs To: Alfred E. Donnellan Nelida Lara DELBELLO DONNELLAN WEINGARTEN & WIEDERKEHR, LLP One North Lexington Avenue 11th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 10 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/28/2022 11:44 AM INDEX NO. 60767/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1302 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/28/2022 Robert D. MacGill (Pro Hac Vice) Matthew Ciulla (Pro Hac Vice)d MACGILL P.C. 156 E. Market Street Suite 1200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Attorneys for Defendant 11