Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
EXHIBIT B
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
YASEMIN TEKINER,
in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary
and a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner Index No.: 657193/2020
2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as
a holder of equitable interests in a DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
shareholder or a member of the Company PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST
Defendants, FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff,
-against-
BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE
TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY,
INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254-258
W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER,
GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in
her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner
2011 Descendants Trust,
Defendants.
Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Defendants
BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY,
INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC. 254 – 258 W. 35TH ST. LLC (collectively the
“Companies” or “Company Defendants”), BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and
BILLUR AKIPEK (collectively, the “Individual Defendants” and together with the Company
Defendants, the “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, respond as follows to
Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents, dated June 25, 2021 (the
“Requests” and each, a “Request” ).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
Defendants state the following for its objections to the definitions and instructions in the
Requests (“Objections to Definitions and Instructions”):
1. Defendants object to the Definitions and Instructions in these Requests because
they are duplicative of and incorporate the same objectionable language as Plaintiff’s First Request
for Production of Documents.
2. Defendants object to the Requests, including the Definitions and Instructions set
forth therein, to the extent that they seek 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.
3. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they are unduly burdensome in
that they seek documents or information that requires extensive and unreasonable investigative
work on the part of the Defendants.
4. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is
not “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense” of the action.
5. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require the
production of documents that are not within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
6. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of
documents or information that is already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control; that is
equally available to Plaintiff through public sources or records; or that may be obtained from
another source that is more convenient or less burdensome or less expensive.
7. Defendants object to the production of any documents absent the execution of an
appropriate confidentiality stipulation and order.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
8. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek the production of
privileged matter, including, without limitation, documents, communications and information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other
applicable privilege. The inadvertent production of any privileged matter is not intended to
relinquish any privilege and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege.
9. By objecting and/or responding to the Requests, Defendants do not in any way
waive or intend to waive, but rather intend to preserve and are hereby preserving:
(a) All objections to the competency, relevance, materiality, and admissibility
of these Requests, the responses, and their subject matter;
(b) All objections as to the vagueness, ambiguity, or other infirmity in the form
of the Requests and any objections based on the undue burden imposed by the
Requests;
(c) All rights to object on any ground to the use of the responses, or their subject
matter, at any subsequent proceeding, including the trial of this matter, or in any
other action;
(d) All rights to object on any ground to any further requests or any other
discovery requests involving or relating to the subject matter of the Requests;
(e) The right at any time to revise, modify, clarify, and/or supplement any of
the responses to the Requests at any time; and
(f) Any and all privileges and/or rights under the applicable Rules of this Court,
or under the common law, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client, work
product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation privileges; and
(g) Any and all objections previously asserted.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
10. Defendants’ agreement in this response to produce documents or make documents
available for inspection in response to the Requests is not intended to constitute a representation
or admission that any such documents exist, but rather constitutes an undertaking by Defendants
to produce or make available documents that exist, that are within the Defendants’ possession,
custody, or control, that can be found by means of a reasonable search of their files, that are not
subject to any applicable privilege or immunity from disclosure (including, without limitation, the
attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege), and that are
otherwise within the scope of appropriate discovery under CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial
Division Rules.
11. Defendants object to the definition of “Companies” in paragraph 1 of the Requests
as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “independent
contractors, agents, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors,
[and] attorneys” of the Companies, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on their
behalf.” Defendants define “Companies” as Bremen House, Inc., Bremen House Texas, Inc.,
German News Company, Inc., German News Texas, Inc., 254 – 258 W. 35th St. LLC, and their
officers, directors, members, agents or employees.
12. Defendants object to the definition of “Defendants” in paragraph 2 of the Requests
as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “employees,
independent contractors, agents, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors,
successors, [and] attorneys” of Defendants, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on
their behalf.” For purposes of this response, Defendants define “Defendants” as the named
Defendants in this action and, for the Company Defendants, their officers, directors, members,
agents or employees.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
13. Defendants object to the definition of the individual Plaintiff, “Yasemin,” in
paragraph 3 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it
includes in that definition undefined “partners, employees, agents, attorneys, and any persons acting
or purporting to act on her behalf” even though Defendants have no insight into who all of these
individuals or entities are or could be. For purposes of this response, Defendants define “Yasemin”
as the individual Plaintiff in this action only.
14. Defendants object to the definition of “you” and “your” in paragraph 4 of the
Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it incorporates the
same objectionable definition of “Defendants”, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act
on behalf of any such entity or entities.” For purposes of this response, Defendants define “you”
as the named Defendants in this action and, for the Company Defendants, their officers, directors,
members, agents or employees.
15. Defendants object to the definition of “communication” in paragraph 6 of the
Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes oral
communications that are not recorded in a written or electronic medium.
16. Defendants object to the definition of “document” in paragraph 8 of the Requests
to the extent that it exceeds the scope of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules.
Defendants also object to the definition as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly
burdensome to the extent it seeks oral communications that are not recorded in a written or
electronic medium.
17. Defendants object to Instructions 1, 4, 6 and 7 of the Requests to the extent they
seek to impose obligations on Defendants beyond the requirements of CPLR Article 31 and the
Commercial Division Rules.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
18. Defendants object to Instructions 2 and 9 as unduly burdensome and unreasonable
in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information because they seek to impose
unreasonable requirements on the form of Defendants’ production of electronically stored
information (“ESI”). Defendants will negotiate an appropriate ESI protocol to govern the parties’
document productions.
19. Defendants object to Instruction 10 of the Requests because it defines the relevant
time period for all of the Requests as “January 1, 2011 to the present,” which period is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain
the information.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
Subject to and without waiver of the Objections to Definitions and Instructions, each of
which is hereby incorporated in the responses to each individual Request, Defendants respond as
follows:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
All communications with Aydin Caginalp between January 1, 2008 and the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks all communications with Aydin Caginalp, which information is not
“material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort
and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as
overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information dating back to 2008, which is
prior to the relevant time period for Plaintiff’s claims and outside of the applicable statute of
limitations periods. Defendants further object to this Request as irrelevant as it seeks
communications with a third party, Aydin Caginalp, who was neither involved in the operations
of the Companies and nor a Trustee or member of the Trust Committee of the Yasemin Trust
during the relevant time period. Defendants further object to this Request to a former attorney,
because it plainly seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the
attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents in response to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
All documents concerning Aydin Caginalp from January 1, 2008 to the present.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First
Request for Production of Documents No. 55. Defendants further object to this Request because
it is duplicative of Request No. 1 herein, and refer Plaintiff to their objections and responses to
Request 1 as if fully set forth herein.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents in response to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
All documents concerning any trust granted or created by Sami Tekiner, including but not
limited to Trust U/A/D February 20, 1990 from January 1, 2008 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad
and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents concerning any trust granted or created by
Sami Tekiner for a period of 13 years. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks
information that is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor
reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information, as none of the
claims in the lawsuit concern the deceased Sami Tekiner or his trust(s). Defendants further object
to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information dating back
to 2008, which is prior to the relevant time period for Plaintiff’s claims and outside of the
applicable statute of limitations periods. Defendants further object to this Request as irrelevant
because it seeks information about a trust of Sami Tekiner, the Trust U/A/D February 20, 1990,
which is not at issue in this lawsuit. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it seeks
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-
product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to this Request
because it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 25, and refer
Plaintiff to their objections and responses to Request 25 as if fully set forth herein.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents responsive to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Documents sufficient to show the beneficiaries including all primary and contingent
beneficiaries of The Residuary Trust U/W of Sami Tekiner.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome and therefore unlikely to lead to the discovery of information material and necessary
to the prosecution or defense of this action as no claims concern The Residuary Trust U/W of Sami
Tekiner. Defendants further object to this Request as irrelevant because it seeks information about
The Residuary Trust U/W of Sami Tekiner, which is not necessary in the prosecution or defense
of this action. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of
documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege,
or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to this Request because it is
duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 25, and refer Plaintiff to
their objections and responses to Request 25 as if fully set forth herein.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents pursuant to this Request.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
All documents concerning any trust of which Yasemin is or was a beneficiary or contingent
beneficiary.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad
and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents concerning any trust without limitation as
to any relevant time period. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks information
that is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light
of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this
Request as irrelevant to the extent it seeks information prior to the relevant time period of the
lawsuit, which is not necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. Defendants further
object to this Request as irrelevant to the extent it seeks information about The Residuary Trust
U/W of Sami Tekiner, which is not necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action.
Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents already in Plaintiff’s
possession, custody, or control. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it seeks the
disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-
product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to this Request
because it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 25.
Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of
Documents No. 25, and refer Plaintiff to their objections and responses to Request 25 as if fully
set forth herein. Defendants further object to this Request because it is duplicative of Request No.
22 herein.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce
responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, dated January 1, 2015 through 2021, concerning
transactions undertaken by the Yasemin Trust.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
The Companies’ tax returns.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions
and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because the
Companies’ tax returns are not material and necessary to the prosecution and defense of this action.
Defendants further object because Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showings under New
York law entitling Plaintiffs to discovery of tax documents, which include a strong, specific
showing that the information is necessary or “indispensable” in the litigation and (2) that the
sought after information cannot be obtained from other sources. Weingarten v. Braun, 158 A.D.3d
519, 520 (1st Dep’t 2018). Defendants further object to this Request as being overly broad and
unduly burdensome because it fails to provide a reasonable time frame for the request. Defendants
further object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of
Documents No. 46.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents in response to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
All consolidated and stand-alone financial statements, including all supplemental
materials, for the Companies, for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011 to the present.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks all consolidated or Company-specific financial statements for a ten-
year period, and all supplemental materials, which information is not “material and necessary” to
the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to
obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks information dating back to 2011, which is prior to the relevant time
period for Plaintiff’s claims and outside of the applicable statute of limitations periods. Defendants
further object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for
Production of Documents Nos. 4, 5, 10, and 36. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’
Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents at Response No. 36, where
Defendants already agreed to produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or
control pursuant to the same Request.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce
responsive, non-privileged copies, if any, of financial statements for the Companies from January
1, 2015 to the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Documents sufficient to show the Companies’ revenues, expenses, and profits, including
revenues, expenses, and profits on a building-by-building basis.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it fails to provide a reasonable time frame for the request, or identify any
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
specific buildings for which it seeks information. Defendants further object to this Request as
duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 57, 58, 59,
60, and 61. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it requires Defendants to create
documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce
responsive, non-privileged copies, if any, of documents sufficient to show the Companies’
revenues, expenses, and profits, including revenues, expenses, and profits on a building-by-
building basis dated on or after January 1, 2015.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
All software, databases, and other compilations of the Companies’ financial information,
including all information concerning the Companies’ expenses.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of
Request Nos. 7 and 8. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it fails to provide a reasonable time frame for the request, or identify any
specific expenses for which it seeks information. Defendants further object to this Request as
vague and ambiguous because it fails to define “expenses” and “other compilations”, and as a
result, is also grossly overbroad and unduly burdensome because all software, databases, and other
compilations of the Companies’ financial information is not “material and necessary” to the claims
and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the
information. Defendants further object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request
for Production of Documents No. 10. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to
Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 10, where Defendants already agreed to
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or control pursuant to the same
Request.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce
responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, of summary accounting files reflecting the
Companies’ expenses for fiscal years ended January 1, 2015 to the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
All documents provided to the Companies’ accountants and bookkeepers.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks all documents provided to the Companies’ accountants and
bookkeepers, and therefore plainly does not seek information “material and necessary” to the
claims and defenses in the case nor is the Request reasonable in light of the effort and expense
necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and
unduly burdensome because it fails to provide a reasonable time frame for the Request.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce
responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, of summary accounting files reflecting the
Companies’ expenses for fiscal years ended January 1, 2015 to the present.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Documents sufficient to identify all properties or assets in which the Companies have an
interest, including but not limited to condominium units and cooperative units.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as duplicative of Request No. 8.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks
information relating to all assets within a ten-year time frame and therefore includes assets not
referenced in the Complaint and/or currently owned by the Companies, which information is not
“material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort
and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request to the
extent it requires Defendants to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their
business. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First
Request for Production of Documents No. 11. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response
to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 11, where Defendants already agreed
to produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or control pursuant to the same
Request.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce
responsive, non-privileged documents, sufficient to show the Companies’ current assets.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
All valuations and appraisals of any properties or assets in which the Companies have an
interest from January 1, 2008 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks all valuations and appraisals of any properties or assets within a
timeframe of 13 years, and therefore includes properties not referenced in the Complaint and/or
currently owned by the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to the
claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain
the information. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
because it seeks information dating back to 2008, which is prior to the relevant time period for
Plaintiff’s claims and outside of the applicable statute of limitations periods. Defendants further
object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected
by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege.
Defendants further object to this Request as duplicative of Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Defendants further object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production
of Documents Nos. 9 and 27. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s
First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 9 and 27, where Defendants already agreed to
produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or control pursuant to the same
Request.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce
responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, sufficient to show the most recent appraisal for each
of the properties currently owned by the Companies.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
All documents concerning the tax implications of any transaction concerning any property
or asset in which the Companies have an interest.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks all documents concerning the tax implications of any transaction
concerning any property in which the Companies have had an interest within a period of ten years,
and therefore seeks information that is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in
the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information.
Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it lacks
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
a relevant time frame and fails to identify transaction(s) or propert(y)(ies) or asset(s) about which
it seeks information. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of
documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege,
or other applicable privileges. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent as duplicative
of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 47. Defendants refer Plaintiff to
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents at Response No.
47, where Defendants already agreed to produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’
custody or control pursuant to the same Request.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce
responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, from January 1, 2020 to the present sufficient to
show the tax implications of dissolving the Companies and/or liquidating the Companies’ assets.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
Any gift tax returns of Sami Tekiner and Berrin Tekiner.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks any gift tax returns of the deceased Sami Tekiner, who is not a
Defendant in this action, or Berrin Tekiner. Defendants object to this Request because gift tax
returns for these individuals are not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case
nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants
object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because itlacks a relevant time
frame. Defendants further object because Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showings under
New York law entitling Plaintiffs to discovery of tax documents, which include a strong, specific
showing that the information is necessary or “indispensable” in the litigation and (2) that the
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
sought after information cannot be obtained from other sources. Weingarten v. Braun, 158 A.D.3d
519, 520 (1st Dep’t 2018).
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents in response to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
All documents and correspondence related to the sale or contemplated sale of properties
owned by the Companies to Extell or other buyers, including but not limited to, any final or draft
contracts, correspondence related to negotiations with the prospective buyers, the status of any
down payments for the sales, how the sales prices were set, the status of any pre-closing conditions
and the status of any closings.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks all documents and correspondence relating to the unspecified sale(s)
of unspecified properties, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and
defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the
information. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
ambiguous because it fails to specify which properties and which sale(s) or contemplated sale(s)
are the subject of the Request. Defen
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 EXHIBIT B FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK YASEMIN TEKINER, in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner Index No.: 657193/2020 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable interests in a DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO shareholder or a member of the Company PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST Defendants, FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, -against- BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254-258 W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, Defendants. Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Defendants BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC. 254 – 258 W. 35TH ST. LLC (collectively the “Companies” or “Company Defendants”), BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK (collectively, the “Individual Defendants” and together with the Company Defendants, the “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, respond as follows to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents, dated June 25, 2021 (the “Requests” and each, a “Request” ). FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS Defendants state the following for its objections to the definitions and instructions in the Requests (“Objections to Definitions and Instructions”): 1. Defendants object to the Definitions and Instructions in these Requests because they are duplicative of and incorporate the same objectionable language as Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents. 2. Defendants object to the Requests, including the Definitions and Instructions set forth therein, to the extent that they seek 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. 3. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they are unduly burdensome in that they seek documents or information that requires extensive and unreasonable investigative work on the part of the Defendants. 4. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is not “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense” of the action. 5. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require the production of documents that are not within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. 6. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of documents or information that is already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control; that is equally available to Plaintiff through public sources or records; or that may be obtained from another source that is more convenient or less burdensome or less expensive. 7. Defendants object to the production of any documents absent the execution of an appropriate confidentiality stipulation and order. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 8. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek the production of privileged matter, including, without limitation, documents, communications and information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. The inadvertent production of any privileged matter is not intended to relinquish any privilege and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege. 9. By objecting and/or responding to the Requests, Defendants do not in any way waive or intend to waive, but rather intend to preserve and are hereby preserving: (a) All objections to the competency, relevance, materiality, and admissibility of these Requests, the responses, and their subject matter; (b) All objections as to the vagueness, ambiguity, or other infirmity in the form of the Requests and any objections based on the undue burden imposed by the Requests; (c) All rights to object on any ground to the use of the responses, or their subject matter, at any subsequent proceeding, including the trial of this matter, or in any other action; (d) All rights to object on any ground to any further requests or any other discovery requests involving or relating to the subject matter of the Requests; (e) The right at any time to revise, modify, clarify, and/or supplement any of the responses to the Requests at any time; and (f) Any and all privileges and/or rights under the applicable Rules of this Court, or under the common law, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client, work product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation privileges; and (g) Any and all objections previously asserted. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 10. Defendants’ agreement in this response to produce documents or make documents available for inspection in response to the Requests is not intended to constitute a representation or admission that any such documents exist, but rather constitutes an undertaking by Defendants to produce or make available documents that exist, that are within the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, that can be found by means of a reasonable search of their files, that are not subject to any applicable privilege or immunity from disclosure (including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege), and that are otherwise within the scope of appropriate discovery under CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. 11. Defendants object to the definition of “Companies” in paragraph 1 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “independent contractors, agents, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, [and] attorneys” of the Companies, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf.” Defendants define “Companies” as Bremen House, Inc., Bremen House Texas, Inc., German News Company, Inc., German News Texas, Inc., 254 – 258 W. 35th St. LLC, and their officers, directors, members, agents or employees. 12. Defendants object to the definition of “Defendants” in paragraph 2 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “employees, independent contractors, agents, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, [and] attorneys” of Defendants, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf.” For purposes of this response, Defendants define “Defendants” as the named Defendants in this action and, for the Company Defendants, their officers, directors, members, agents or employees. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 13. Defendants object to the definition of the individual Plaintiff, “Yasemin,” in paragraph 3 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes in that definition undefined “partners, employees, agents, attorneys, and any persons acting or purporting to act on her behalf” even though Defendants have no insight into who all of these individuals or entities are or could be. For purposes of this response, Defendants define “Yasemin” as the individual Plaintiff in this action only. 14. Defendants object to the definition of “you” and “your” in paragraph 4 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it incorporates the same objectionable definition of “Defendants”, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of any such entity or entities.” For purposes of this response, Defendants define “you” as the named Defendants in this action and, for the Company Defendants, their officers, directors, members, agents or employees. 15. Defendants object to the definition of “communication” in paragraph 6 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes oral communications that are not recorded in a written or electronic medium. 16. Defendants object to the definition of “document” in paragraph 8 of the Requests to the extent that it exceeds the scope of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. Defendants also object to the definition as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks oral communications that are not recorded in a written or electronic medium. 17. Defendants object to Instructions 1, 4, 6 and 7 of the Requests to the extent they seek to impose obligations on Defendants beyond the requirements of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 18. Defendants object to Instructions 2 and 9 as unduly burdensome and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information because they seek to impose unreasonable requirements on the form of Defendants’ production of electronically stored information (“ESI”). Defendants will negotiate an appropriate ESI protocol to govern the parties’ document productions. 19. Defendants object to Instruction 10 of the Requests because it defines the relevant time period for all of the Requests as “January 1, 2011 to the present,” which period is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS Subject to and without waiver of the Objections to Definitions and Instructions, each of which is hereby incorporated in the responses to each individual Request, Defendants respond as follows: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All communications with Aydin Caginalp between January 1, 2008 and the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all communications with Aydin Caginalp, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information dating back to 2008, which is prior to the relevant time period for Plaintiff’s claims and outside of the applicable statute of limitations periods. Defendants further object to this Request as irrelevant as it seeks communications with a third party, Aydin Caginalp, who was neither involved in the operations of the Companies and nor a Trustee or member of the Trust Committee of the Yasemin Trust during the relevant time period. Defendants further object to this Request to a former attorney, because it plainly seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents in response to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All documents concerning Aydin Caginalp from January 1, 2008 to the present. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 55. Defendants further object to this Request because it is duplicative of Request No. 1 herein, and refer Plaintiff to their objections and responses to Request 1 as if fully set forth herein. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents in response to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All documents concerning any trust granted or created by Sami Tekiner, including but not limited to Trust U/A/D February 20, 1990 from January 1, 2008 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents concerning any trust granted or created by Sami Tekiner for a period of 13 years. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks information that is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information, as none of the claims in the lawsuit concern the deceased Sami Tekiner or his trust(s). Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information dating back to 2008, which is prior to the relevant time period for Plaintiff’s claims and outside of the applicable statute of limitations periods. Defendants further object to this Request as irrelevant because it seeks information about a trust of Sami Tekiner, the Trust U/A/D February 20, 1990, which is not at issue in this lawsuit. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it seeks FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work- product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to this Request because it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 25, and refer Plaintiff to their objections and responses to Request 25 as if fully set forth herein. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Documents sufficient to show the beneficiaries including all primary and contingent beneficiaries of The Residuary Trust U/W of Sami Tekiner. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome and therefore unlikely to lead to the discovery of information material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action as no claims concern The Residuary Trust U/W of Sami Tekiner. Defendants further object to this Request as irrelevant because it seeks information about The Residuary Trust U/W of Sami Tekiner, which is not necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to this Request because it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 25, and refer Plaintiff to their objections and responses to Request 25 as if fully set forth herein. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents pursuant to this Request. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents concerning any trust of which Yasemin is or was a beneficiary or contingent beneficiary. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as vague, ambiguous, overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents concerning any trust without limitation as to any relevant time period. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks information that is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as irrelevant to the extent it seeks information prior to the relevant time period of the lawsuit, which is not necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. Defendants further object to this Request as irrelevant to the extent it seeks information about The Residuary Trust U/W of Sami Tekiner, which is not necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work- product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to this Request because it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 25. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 25, and refer Plaintiff to their objections and responses to Request 25 as if fully set forth herein. Defendants further object to this Request because it is duplicative of Request No. 22 herein. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, dated January 1, 2015 through 2021, concerning transactions undertaken by the Yasemin Trust. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: The Companies’ tax returns. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because the Companies’ tax returns are not material and necessary to the prosecution and defense of this action. Defendants further object because Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showings under New York law entitling Plaintiffs to discovery of tax documents, which include a strong, specific showing that the information is necessary or “indispensable” in the litigation and (2) that the sought after information cannot be obtained from other sources. Weingarten v. Braun, 158 A.D.3d 519, 520 (1st Dep’t 2018). Defendants further object to this Request as being overly broad and unduly burdensome because it fails to provide a reasonable time frame for the request. Defendants further object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 46. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents in response to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All consolidated and stand-alone financial statements, including all supplemental materials, for the Companies, for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2011 to the present. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all consolidated or Company-specific financial statements for a ten- year period, and all supplemental materials, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information dating back to 2011, which is prior to the relevant time period for Plaintiff’s claims and outside of the applicable statute of limitations periods. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 4, 5, 10, and 36. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents at Response No. 36, where Defendants already agreed to produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or control pursuant to the same Request. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce responsive, non-privileged copies, if any, of financial statements for the Companies from January 1, 2015 to the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Documents sufficient to show the Companies’ revenues, expenses, and profits, including revenues, expenses, and profits on a building-by-building basis. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it fails to provide a reasonable time frame for the request, or identify any FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 specific buildings for which it seeks information. Defendants further object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 57, 58, 59, 60, and 61. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it requires Defendants to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce responsive, non-privileged copies, if any, of documents sufficient to show the Companies’ revenues, expenses, and profits, including revenues, expenses, and profits on a building-by- building basis dated on or after January 1, 2015. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All software, databases, and other compilations of the Companies’ financial information, including all information concerning the Companies’ expenses. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Request Nos. 7 and 8. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it fails to provide a reasonable time frame for the request, or identify any specific expenses for which it seeks information. Defendants further object to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it fails to define “expenses” and “other compilations”, and as a result, is also grossly overbroad and unduly burdensome because all software, databases, and other compilations of the Companies’ financial information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 10. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 10, where Defendants already agreed to FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or control pursuant to the same Request. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, of summary accounting files reflecting the Companies’ expenses for fiscal years ended January 1, 2015 to the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All documents provided to the Companies’ accountants and bookkeepers. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents provided to the Companies’ accountants and bookkeepers, and therefore plainly does not seek information “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor is the Request reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it fails to provide a reasonable time frame for the Request. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, of summary accounting files reflecting the Companies’ expenses for fiscal years ended January 1, 2015 to the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Documents sufficient to identify all properties or assets in which the Companies have an interest, including but not limited to condominium units and cooperative units. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as duplicative of Request No. 8. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information relating to all assets within a ten-year time frame and therefore includes assets not referenced in the Complaint and/or currently owned by the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it requires Defendants to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 11. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 11, where Defendants already agreed to produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or control pursuant to the same Request. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce responsive, non-privileged documents, sufficient to show the Companies’ current assets. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All valuations and appraisals of any properties or assets in which the Companies have an interest from January 1, 2008 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all valuations and appraisals of any properties or assets within a timeframe of 13 years, and therefore includes properties not referenced in the Complaint and/or currently owned by the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 because it seeks information dating back to 2008, which is prior to the relevant time period for Plaintiff’s claims and outside of the applicable statute of limitations periods. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to this Request as duplicative of Request Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10. Defendants further object to this Request as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 9 and 27. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 9 and 27, where Defendants already agreed to produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or control pursuant to the same Request. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, sufficient to show the most recent appraisal for each of the properties currently owned by the Companies. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All documents concerning the tax implications of any transaction concerning any property or asset in which the Companies have an interest. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents concerning the tax implications of any transaction concerning any property in which the Companies have had an interest within a period of ten years, and therefore seeks information that is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it lacks FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 a relevant time frame and fails to identify transaction(s) or propert(y)(ies) or asset(s) about which it seeks information. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or other applicable privileges. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent as duplicative of Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 47. Defendants refer Plaintiff to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents at Response No. 47, where Defendants already agreed to produce non-privileged documents within Defendants’ custody or control pursuant to the same Request. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants will search for and produce responsive, non-privileged documents, if any, from January 1, 2020 to the present sufficient to show the tax implications of dissolving the Companies and/or liquidating the Companies’ assets. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Any gift tax returns of Sami Tekiner and Berrin Tekiner. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks any gift tax returns of the deceased Sami Tekiner, who is not a Defendant in this action, or Berrin Tekiner. Defendants object to this Request because gift tax returns for these individuals are not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because itlacks a relevant time frame. Defendants further object because Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showings under New York law entitling Plaintiffs to discovery of tax documents, which include a strong, specific showing that the information is necessary or “indispensable” in the litigation and (2) that the FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 479 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 sought after information cannot be obtained from other sources. Weingarten v. Braun, 158 A.D.3d 519, 520 (1st Dep’t 2018). Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents in response to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All documents and correspondence related to the sale or contemplated sale of properties owned by the Companies to Extell or other buyers, including but not limited to, any final or draft contracts, correspondence related to negotiations with the prospective buyers, the status of any down payments for the sales, how the sales prices were set, the status of any pre-closing conditions and the status of any closings. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and correspondence relating to the unspecified sale(s) of unspecified properties, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants object to this Request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous because it fails to specify which properties and which sale(s) or contemplated sale(s) are the subject of the Request. Defen