Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2022 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2022
EXHIBIT B
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2022 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2022
80 Pine Street│ 33rd Floor │New York, NY │10005 │T. (212) 269-5600 │F. (646) 964-6667 │www.mandelbhandari.com
April 8, 2021
BY EMAIL
Judith Archer
Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6022
judith.archer@nortonrosefulbright.com
Re: Yasemin Tekiner v.
Bremen House, Inc., et al., No. 657193/2020
Dear Judith:
This office represents plaintiff Yasmin Tekiner. We have received defendants’ March
18, 2021 subpoena (the “Subpoena”) to Lisa Rubin (“Rubin”), and Rubin objects to that
Subpoena as follows:
General Objections:
Rubin objects to the Subpoena, including the Definitions and Instructions set forth
therein, to the extent it seeks to impose burdens or obligations beyond what is required by the
Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), the Commercial Division Rules, the Part Rules, or any
other applicable law, rule or Court order.
Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it requires disclosure of information that is
protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product privilege, or any other
applicable privilege or is otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privileges, laws,
or rules. Rubin further objects to providing any information concerning privileged documents
that would, in effect, reveal privileged information.
Rubin objects to the definitions of “You” and “Your” as vague, ambiguous and
overbroad.
Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is neither relevant to
this action nor likely to lead to admissible evidence.
Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available
or that is in the possession of and can be more easily and suitably obtained directly from a party
to the litigation.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2022 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2022
Judith Archer
April 8, 2021
Page 2
Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it imposes an undue burden on Rubin, a third
party. Rubin further objects to the Subpoena as violating the proportionality requirements of the
CPLR and Commercial Division rules. Rubin objects to Instruction 11 about ESI as unduly
burdensome and exceeding the requirements of any applicable rule concerning production of
ESI.
To the extent that the Subpoena seeks information that is not publicly available, Rubin
objects to the disclosure of proprietary or highly confidential information, such as trade secrets
or other research, development, or commercial information.
Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is not in the
possession, custody, or control of Rubin, that is not known or reasonably available to Rubin, that
is not ascertainable by means of a reasonably diligent search, that is not maintained by Rubin in
the normal course of business, or that is no longer maintained by Rubin.
Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it requires Rubin to produce information in
violation of any legal or contractual obligation of nondisclosure or confidentiality to any third
party. Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it fails to describe the information and/or
documents requested with reasonable particularity.
Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it exceeds the Court’s jurisdiction, or
imposes any obligations beyond those required by applicable law.
Rubin reserves the right to assert additional objections in the future.
Response to Specific Document Requests:
Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 19 and 20: Rubin objects to these requests on the
ground that they seek documents that are neither relevant to this action nor likely to lead to the
discovery of relevant evidence. Rubin also objects to these requests as vague and ambiguous, in
that “Trust” is not a defined term. Rubin further objects to these requests as imposing an
improper burden on a third party, by self-evidently seeking documents within the custody and
control of a party. Rubin also objects to these requests as improper blanket requests, in that they
request “all documents and communications,” and such blanket requests are improper and
insufficiently tailored under the CPLR. Rubin further objects to these requests as imposing
burdens of review and production on a third party that are disproportionate to the needs of the
case, and thus violative of the proportionality requirements of the CPLR and Commercial
Division rules. Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections or any general
objections, Rubin responds as follows: Rubin will not produce documents responsive only to
these requests.
Requests 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21 and 22: Rubin objects to these requests on the ground
that they seek documents that are neither relevant to this action nor likely to lead to the discovery
of relevant evidence. Rubin also objects to these requests as vague and ambiguous, in that
“Trust” is not a defined term. Rubin further objects to these requests as imposing an improper
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2022 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2022
Judith Archer
April 8, 2021
Page 3
burden on a third party, by seeking documents within the custody and control of a party. Rubin
also objects to these requests as improper blanket requests, in that they request “all documents
and communications,” and such blanket requests are improper and insufficiently tailored under
the CPLR. Rubin further objects to these requests as imposing burdens of review and production
on a third party that are disproportionate to the needs of the case, and thus violative of the
proportionality requirements of the CPLR and Commercial Division rules. Subject to and
without waiving any of the above objections or any general objections, Rubin responds as
follows: Rubin will produce documents sufficient to show amounts paid by her, including living
expenses, in connection with residing in properties owned by the Companies since 2015. Rubin
is not aware of travel expenses incurred by her that were directly paid by the Companies or the
Yasemin Trust, and will not produce documents responsive only to the request in number 15 for
“all documents and communications regarding any trips you have taken that were paid for … by
… Berrin,” on grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to this action nor likely
to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, and is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Requests 16 and 17: Rubin objects to these requests on the ground that they seek
documents that are neither relevant to this action nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant
evidence. Rubin also objects to these requests as improper blanket requests, in that they request
“all documents and communications,” and such blanket requests are improper and insufficiently
tailored under the CPLR. Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections or any
general objections, Rubin responds as follows: Rubin will not produce documents responsive
only to these requests.
Request 23: Rubin objects to this request as imposing an improper burden on a third
party, by self-evidently seeking documents within the custody and control of a party. Rubin also
objects to these requests as improper blanket requests, in that they request “all documents and
communications,” and such blanket requests are improper and insufficiently tailored under the
CPLR. Rubin further objects to this request as imposing burdens of review and production on a
third party that are disproportionate to the needs of the case, and thus violative of the
proportionality requirements of the CPLR and Commercial Division rules. Rubin also objects to
this request as seeking disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege,
attorney work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege or is otherwise protected from
disclosure under applicable privileges, laws, or rules. Rubin further objects to providing any
information concerning privileged documents that would, in effect, reveal privileged
information. Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections or any general
objections, Rubin responds as follows: Rubin will not produce documents responsive only to
this request.
I am available to discuss this matter further at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Evan Mandel
Evan Mandel
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2022 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2022 EXHIBIT B FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2022 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2022 80 Pine Street│ 33rd Floor │New York, NY │10005 │T. (212) 269-5600 │F. (646) 964-6667 │www.mandelbhandari.com April 8, 2021 BY EMAIL Judith Archer Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6022 judith.archer@nortonrosefulbright.com Re: Yasemin Tekiner v. Bremen House, Inc., et al., No. 657193/2020 Dear Judith: This office represents plaintiff Yasmin Tekiner. We have received defendants’ March 18, 2021 subpoena (the “Subpoena”) to Lisa Rubin (“Rubin”), and Rubin objects to that Subpoena as follows: General Objections: Rubin objects to the Subpoena, including the Definitions and Instructions set forth therein, to the extent it seeks to impose burdens or obligations beyond what is required by the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), the Commercial Division Rules, the Part Rules, or any other applicable law, rule or Court order. Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it requires disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege or is otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privileges, laws, or rules. Rubin further objects to providing any information concerning privileged documents that would, in effect, reveal privileged information. Rubin objects to the definitions of “You” and “Your” as vague, ambiguous and overbroad. Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is neither relevant to this action nor likely to lead to admissible evidence. Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available or that is in the possession of and can be more easily and suitably obtained directly from a party to the litigation. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2022 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2022 Judith Archer April 8, 2021 Page 2 Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it imposes an undue burden on Rubin, a third party. Rubin further objects to the Subpoena as violating the proportionality requirements of the CPLR and Commercial Division rules. Rubin objects to Instruction 11 about ESI as unduly burdensome and exceeding the requirements of any applicable rule concerning production of ESI. To the extent that the Subpoena seeks information that is not publicly available, Rubin objects to the disclosure of proprietary or highly confidential information, such as trade secrets or other research, development, or commercial information. Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Rubin, that is not known or reasonably available to Rubin, that is not ascertainable by means of a reasonably diligent search, that is not maintained by Rubin in the normal course of business, or that is no longer maintained by Rubin. Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it requires Rubin to produce information in violation of any legal or contractual obligation of nondisclosure or confidentiality to any third party. Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it fails to describe the information and/or documents requested with reasonable particularity. Rubin objects to the Subpoena to the extent it exceeds the Court’s jurisdiction, or imposes any obligations beyond those required by applicable law. Rubin reserves the right to assert additional objections in the future. Response to Specific Document Requests: Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 19 and 20: Rubin objects to these requests on the ground that they seek documents that are neither relevant to this action nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Rubin also objects to these requests as vague and ambiguous, in that “Trust” is not a defined term. Rubin further objects to these requests as imposing an improper burden on a third party, by self-evidently seeking documents within the custody and control of a party. Rubin also objects to these requests as improper blanket requests, in that they request “all documents and communications,” and such blanket requests are improper and insufficiently tailored under the CPLR. Rubin further objects to these requests as imposing burdens of review and production on a third party that are disproportionate to the needs of the case, and thus violative of the proportionality requirements of the CPLR and Commercial Division rules. Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections or any general objections, Rubin responds as follows: Rubin will not produce documents responsive only to these requests. Requests 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21 and 22: Rubin objects to these requests on the ground that they seek documents that are neither relevant to this action nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Rubin also objects to these requests as vague and ambiguous, in that “Trust” is not a defined term. Rubin further objects to these requests as imposing an improper FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/06/2022 11:55 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 400 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/06/2022 Judith Archer April 8, 2021 Page 3 burden on a third party, by seeking documents within the custody and control of a party. Rubin also objects to these requests as improper blanket requests, in that they request “all documents and communications,” and such blanket requests are improper and insufficiently tailored under the CPLR. Rubin further objects to these requests as imposing burdens of review and production on a third party that are disproportionate to the needs of the case, and thus violative of the proportionality requirements of the CPLR and Commercial Division rules. Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections or any general objections, Rubin responds as follows: Rubin will produce documents sufficient to show amounts paid by her, including living expenses, in connection with residing in properties owned by the Companies since 2015. Rubin is not aware of travel expenses incurred by her that were directly paid by the Companies or the Yasemin Trust, and will not produce documents responsive only to the request in number 15 for “all documents and communications regarding any trips you have taken that were paid for … by … Berrin,” on grounds that it seeks documents that are neither relevant to this action nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, and is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Requests 16 and 17: Rubin objects to these requests on the ground that they seek documents that are neither relevant to this action nor likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Rubin also objects to these requests as improper blanket requests, in that they request “all documents and communications,” and such blanket requests are improper and insufficiently tailored under the CPLR. Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections or any general objections, Rubin responds as follows: Rubin will not produce documents responsive only to these requests. Request 23: Rubin objects to this request as imposing an improper burden on a third party, by self-evidently seeking documents within the custody and control of a party. Rubin also objects to these requests as improper blanket requests, in that they request “all documents and communications,” and such blanket requests are improper and insufficiently tailored under the CPLR. Rubin further objects to this request as imposing burdens of review and production on a third party that are disproportionate to the needs of the case, and thus violative of the proportionality requirements of the CPLR and Commercial Division rules. Rubin also objects to this request as seeking disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege or is otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privileges, laws, or rules. Rubin further objects to providing any information concerning privileged documents that would, in effect, reveal privileged information. Subject to and without waiving any of the above objections or any general objections, Rubin responds as follows: Rubin will not produce documents responsive only to this request. I am available to discuss this matter further at your convenience. Very truly yours, /s/ Evan Mandel Evan Mandel