Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
EXHIBIT E
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
September 1, 2021
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
Via E-Mail 1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6022
Evan Mandel United States
Donald Conklin
Sean Topping
Mandel Bhandari LLP
Associate
80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
Direct line +1 212 318 3361
New York, NY 10005
sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com
em@mandelbhandari.com
dc@mandelbhandari.com Tel +1 212 318 3000
Fax +1 212 318 3400
Stephen P. Younger nortonrosefulbright.com
Foley Hoag LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10019
spyounger@foleyhoag.com
Re: Yasemin Tekiner v. Bremen House, Inc., et al., No. 657193/2020
Dear Mr. Mandel:
As you know, we represent Defendants 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 (“Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter. We write concerning
issues pertaining to Plaintiff’s discovery responses and document production on behalf of Lisa
Rubin (“Rubin”).
Previous Efforts to Resolve Disputes Over the Rubin Subpoena
On March 18, 2021, Defendants served Rubin with a subpoena (the “Subpoena”) seeking
documents relevant to this Action.
You responded on Rubin’s behalf on April 8, 2021, broadly objecting to the Subpoena and
agreeing to produce one subset of documents in response to several requests (“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”) and none for the
remaining requests. On May 19, 2021, Defendants responded with a lengthy letter objecting the
broad boilerplate language in Rubin’s April 8th letter and a general refusal to produce most
documents requested.
On May 27, 2021, the parties met and conferred on several issues, including the Subpoena.
Rather than addressing the issues raised in Defendants’ May 19th letter, Plaintiff in effect agreed
to produce documents from Rubin if Defendants agreed to produce documents from Berrin
Tekiner’s spouse, Gurer Aykal. Defendants objected based on the significant differences
between Rubin and Aykal’s involvement in the subject matter and conduct of this Action. Despite
not resolving Defendants’ concerns at the May 27th meet-and-confer, Plaintiff subsequently
produced some documents on June 30th and July 29th, 2021, on Rubin’s behalf.
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered under the laws of Texas.
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and Norton Rose
Fulbright South Africa Inc are separate legal entities and all of them are members of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss verein. Norton Rose Fulbright
Verein helps coordinate the activities of the members but does not itself provide legal services to clients. Details of each entity, with certain regulatory
information, are available at nortonrosefulbright.com.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
Evan Mandel, Esq.
Donald Conklin, Esq.
September 1, 2021
Page 2
Substantive Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses
Defendants note a number of substantive deficiencies in Rubin’s response to the Subpoena, and
direct Rubin to remedy them by September 10, 2021, or Defendants will serve a Rule 14 letter.
First, few unique email communications to or from Ms. Rubin were produced. To date, you have
produced just 190 parent emails with Rubin as custodian, many of which are wholly irrelevant.
Second, there are roughly 120 email communications included in Plaintiff and Rubin’s privilege
log between Plaintiff and counsel that copy Rubin. Rubin is required to produce all such emails,
as Plaintiff plainly waived privilege over them by copying Rubin on communications with her
attorneys. There is no basis to withhold from production any communications involving Rubin
and Plaintiff. Once those documents are produced, we reserve all of our rights with respect to
whether a subject matter waiver to has occurred.
Third, there are specific deficiencies related to Rubin’s responses to the document requests in
the Subpoena to her, to which she asserted improper objections. We summarized these
1
deficiencies in a May 19, 2021 letter, and, now having reviewed documents from Rubin , reiterate
them herein.
• Request No. 1 –Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]lldocuments and communications regarding the management, operations, or
finances of the Companies,” aside from select text messages generally questioning the
Companies’ financial performance. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to
this Request be produced immediately.
• Request No. 2 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding Weitzman Associates.”
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 3 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding Marcus & Millichap, Inc.”
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 4 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]lldocuments and communications regarding the Extell Transaction . . . .”
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
1 We note that many documents in which Rubin is the designated custodian are simply emails and
attachments sent by Plaintiff to her counsel as part of this litigation, cc’ing Rubin. This appears to be blatant
self-collection and Rubin is on few, if any, of the underlying communications. Defendants have not counted
these attachments in their deficiencies list above.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
Evan Mandel, Esq.
Donald Conklin, Esq.
September 1, 2021
Page 3
• Request No. 5 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding what the Companies should do with
the proceeds of the Extell Transaction,” aside from select text messages generally
questioning the Companies’ financial performance. Defendants demand that all
documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately.
• Request No. 6 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding . . . splitting up the assets of the
Companies,” aside from select text messages questioning Plaintiff’s potential inheritance.
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 7 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the 1031 Exchange.” Defendants
demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately.
• Request No. 8 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the operation . . . of the Trust.”
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 9 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding distributions to Yasemin under the
Trust.” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 10 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]lldocuments and communications regarding the removal of Yasemin as a
member of the Trust Committee and .. . as an officer and director of the Companies.”
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 11 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding
the Companies’ properties in which You have resided or anticipated residing . . . .” Plaintiff
previously agreed to produce documents sufficient to show amounts paid by Rubin,
including living expenses, in connection with residing in properties owned by the
Companies since 2015. To date, Rubin has produced select invoices and
communications pertaining to maintenance of, and furnishing for, certain Company
properties. However, given that Rubin has resided in such properties for a number of
years, Defendants believe these communications to be deficient. Defendants demand
that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately.
• Request No. 12 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the purchase of [the] . . . Vicenza
Way” home in Los Angeles, CA. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to
this Request be produced immediately.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
Evan Mandel, Esq.
Donald Conklin, Esq.
September 1, 2021
Page 4
• Request No. 13 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the amounts You have paid or pay
to live at [the] Vicenza Way” home in Los Angeles, CA. Defendants demand that all
documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately.
• Request No. 14 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding
the amounts You have paid or pay in expenses or costs related to [the] Vicenza Way”
home in Los Angeles, CA. Plaintiff previously agreed to produce documents sufficient to
show amounts paid by Rubin, including living expenses, in connection with residing in
properties owned by the Companies since 2015. Rubin has produced select invoices and
communications pertaining to maintenance of, and furnishing for, certain Company
properties. While Rubin has produced some invoices from retailers such as Restoration
Hardware and Best Buy, it is clear from the face of the invoice that many such expenses
were paid by Bremen House, not Rubin. (See, e.g.,TEKINER00025601;
TEKINER00025679) Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request
be produced immediately.
• Request No. 15 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding
any trips you have taken that were paid for. . . by the Companies or Berrin . . . .” Rubin
has produced only a handful of text messages or documents from travel agents for realized
or planned trips that Rubin took with either Plaintiff or Defendants. However, given that
Rubin benefited from a number of international trips, including resort accommodations and
business class travel to Bora Bora and Turkey, this production is wholly deficient.
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 16 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding
Your move to New York, NY in 2016 and 2017 and decision to stay in one or more
Company-owned apartments . . . .” Rubin has produced only a handful of text messages
concerning Plaintiff and her move to either 312 Bowery or 1320 Madison Avenue. Given
the amount of time and resources used while in these properties, this production is wholly
deficient. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 17 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding Your salary made during the time
You resided in Company-owned apartments in New York . . . .” Defendants demand that
all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately.
• Request No. 18 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding
the amounts You paid to live in Company-owned apartments in New York in 2016 and
2017 . . . .” Plaintiff previously agreed to produce documents sufficient to show amounts
paid by Rubin, including living expenses, in connection with residing in properties owned
by the Companies since 2015. This agreement to produce was already deficient and
improperly ignored most of Defendants’ requests as stated in Defendants’ previous letter
and attempt to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections. To date,
Rubin has produced select invoices and communications pertaining to maintenance of,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
Evan Mandel, Esq.
Donald Conklin, Esq.
September 1, 2021
Page 5
and furnishing for, certain Company properties. While Rubin has produced some invoices
from retailers such as Restoration Hardware and Best Buy, it is clear from the face of the
invoice that many such expenses were paid by Bremen House, not Rubin. (See,
e.g.,TEKINER00025601; TEKINER00025679) Defendants demand that all documents
responsive to this Request be produced immediately.
• Request No. 19 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding
costs incurred by the Companies during Your occupancy of 312–314 Bowery, New York,
NY and 1320 Madison Avenue, New York, NY . . . .” While Rubin has produced some
invoices from retailers such as Restoration Hardware and Best Buy reflecting expenses
paid by Bremen House (see, e.g.,TEKINER00025601; TEKINER00025679), given the
amount of time and resources used while in these properties, this production is wholly
deficient. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 20 – Aside from select text messages with a passing reference to Plaintiff’s
demands that Company properties be renovated to reflect her tastes, Rubin has produced
no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and
communications regarding renovations or updates made to 312–314 Bowery, New York,
NY or 1320 Madison Avenue, New York, NY in 2016 or 2017.” Defendants demand that
all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately.
• Request No. 21 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding
any direct or indirect monetary benefit You have derived from the Companies or the Trust
. . . .” To date, Defendants have received no documents showing any direct or indirect
monetary benefit Rubin derived from the Companies or the Trust, including but not limited
to (1) cash payments to Yasemin in the form of salary, gifts, bonuses, dividends,
distributions, or reimbursements; and (2) expenses incurred by the Companies or the
Trust on behalf of You or Yasemin, such as living, food, clothing, or travel expenses.
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 22 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding
any living accommodations provided to You by the Companies. . . .” To date, Defendants
have received no documents regarding any living accommodations provided to Rubin by
the Companies, including but not limited to any apartments, homes, townhomes, or hotels
in which Rubin stayed or are staying, whether owned by the Defendants or not.
Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced
immediately.
• Request No. 23 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which
seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the decision to file the Complaint
in the instant Action or sue the Defendants” beyond Rubin’s being copied on emails
collecting and submitted responsive communications to counsel. They do not include, for
example, communications solely between Plaintiff and Rubin. Defendants demand that
all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022
Evan Mandel, Esq.
Donald Conklin, Esq.
September 1, 2021
Page 6
Demand to Produce
In light of the parties’ previous discussions and earlier meet-and-confer on the Rubin subpoena,
please consider this letter to be Defendants’ final attempt to resolve the issues regarding
production of documents responsive to the Subpoena noted above. In the event, however, that
Rubin does not complete her production of documents responsive to the Subpoena, or confirm
for each Request that she does not have responsive documents by September 10, 2021, Plaintiff
will take appropriate action with the Court. In addition, Defendants will not proceed with the
deposition of Ms. Rubin until the issues with her document production are satisfactorily resolved.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Sean M. Topping
Sean M. Topping
cc: Judith A. Archer, Esq., Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
Victoria V. Corder, Esq., Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 EXHIBIT E FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 September 1, 2021 Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Via E-Mail 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6022 Evan Mandel United States Donald Conklin Sean Topping Mandel Bhandari LLP Associate 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor Direct line +1 212 318 3361 New York, NY 10005 sean.topping@nortonrosefulbright.com em@mandelbhandari.com dc@mandelbhandari.com Tel +1 212 318 3000 Fax +1 212 318 3400 Stephen P. Younger nortonrosefulbright.com Foley Hoag LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 25th Floor New York, NY 10019 spyounger@foleyhoag.com Re: Yasemin Tekiner v. Bremen House, Inc., et al., No. 657193/2020 Dear Mr. Mandel: As you know, we represent Defendants 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 (“Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter. We write concerning issues pertaining to Plaintiff’s discovery responses and document production on behalf of Lisa Rubin (“Rubin”). Previous Efforts to Resolve Disputes Over the Rubin Subpoena On March 18, 2021, Defendants served Rubin with a subpoena (the “Subpoena”) seeking documents relevant to this Action. You responded on Rubin’s behalf on April 8, 2021, broadly objecting to the Subpoena and agreeing to produce one subset of documents in response to several requests (“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”) and none for the remaining requests. On May 19, 2021, Defendants responded with a lengthy letter objecting the broad boilerplate language in Rubin’s April 8th letter and a general refusal to produce most documents requested. On May 27, 2021, the parties met and conferred on several issues, including the Subpoena. Rather than addressing the issues raised in Defendants’ May 19th letter, Plaintiff in effect agreed to produce documents from Rubin if Defendants agreed to produce documents from Berrin Tekiner’s spouse, Gurer Aykal. Defendants objected based on the significant differences between Rubin and Aykal’s involvement in the subject matter and conduct of this Action. Despite not resolving Defendants’ concerns at the May 27th meet-and-confer, Plaintiff subsequently produced some documents on June 30th and July 29th, 2021, on Rubin’s behalf. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered under the laws of Texas. Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP and Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc are separate legal entities and all of them are members of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the members but does not itself provide legal services to clients. Details of each entity, with certain regulatory information, are available at nortonrosefulbright.com. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 Evan Mandel, Esq. Donald Conklin, Esq. September 1, 2021 Page 2 Substantive Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses Defendants note a number of substantive deficiencies in Rubin’s response to the Subpoena, and direct Rubin to remedy them by September 10, 2021, or Defendants will serve a Rule 14 letter. First, few unique email communications to or from Ms. Rubin were produced. To date, you have produced just 190 parent emails with Rubin as custodian, many of which are wholly irrelevant. Second, there are roughly 120 email communications included in Plaintiff and Rubin’s privilege log between Plaintiff and counsel that copy Rubin. Rubin is required to produce all such emails, as Plaintiff plainly waived privilege over them by copying Rubin on communications with her attorneys. There is no basis to withhold from production any communications involving Rubin and Plaintiff. Once those documents are produced, we reserve all of our rights with respect to whether a subject matter waiver to has occurred. Third, there are specific deficiencies related to Rubin’s responses to the document requests in the Subpoena to her, to which she asserted improper objections. We summarized these 1 deficiencies in a May 19, 2021 letter, and, now having reviewed documents from Rubin , reiterate them herein. • Request No. 1 –Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]lldocuments and communications regarding the management, operations, or finances of the Companies,” aside from select text messages generally questioning the Companies’ financial performance. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 2 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding Weitzman Associates.” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 3 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding Marcus & Millichap, Inc.” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 4 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]lldocuments and communications regarding the Extell Transaction . . . .” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. 1 We note that many documents in which Rubin is the designated custodian are simply emails and attachments sent by Plaintiff to her counsel as part of this litigation, cc’ing Rubin. This appears to be blatant self-collection and Rubin is on few, if any, of the underlying communications. Defendants have not counted these attachments in their deficiencies list above. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 Evan Mandel, Esq. Donald Conklin, Esq. September 1, 2021 Page 3 • Request No. 5 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding what the Companies should do with the proceeds of the Extell Transaction,” aside from select text messages generally questioning the Companies’ financial performance. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 6 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding . . . splitting up the assets of the Companies,” aside from select text messages questioning Plaintiff’s potential inheritance. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 7 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the 1031 Exchange.” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 8 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the operation . . . of the Trust.” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 9 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding distributions to Yasemin under the Trust.” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 10 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]lldocuments and communications regarding the removal of Yasemin as a member of the Trust Committee and .. . as an officer and director of the Companies.” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 11 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the Companies’ properties in which You have resided or anticipated residing . . . .” Plaintiff previously agreed to produce documents sufficient to show amounts paid by Rubin, including living expenses, in connection with residing in properties owned by the Companies since 2015. To date, Rubin has produced select invoices and communications pertaining to maintenance of, and furnishing for, certain Company properties. However, given that Rubin has resided in such properties for a number of years, Defendants believe these communications to be deficient. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 12 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the purchase of [the] . . . Vicenza Way” home in Los Angeles, CA. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 Evan Mandel, Esq. Donald Conklin, Esq. September 1, 2021 Page 4 • Request No. 13 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the amounts You have paid or pay to live at [the] Vicenza Way” home in Los Angeles, CA. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 14 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the amounts You have paid or pay in expenses or costs related to [the] Vicenza Way” home in Los Angeles, CA. Plaintiff previously agreed to produce documents sufficient to show amounts paid by Rubin, including living expenses, in connection with residing in properties owned by the Companies since 2015. Rubin has produced select invoices and communications pertaining to maintenance of, and furnishing for, certain Company properties. While Rubin has produced some invoices from retailers such as Restoration Hardware and Best Buy, it is clear from the face of the invoice that many such expenses were paid by Bremen House, not Rubin. (See, e.g.,TEKINER00025601; TEKINER00025679) Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 15 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding any trips you have taken that were paid for. . . by the Companies or Berrin . . . .” Rubin has produced only a handful of text messages or documents from travel agents for realized or planned trips that Rubin took with either Plaintiff or Defendants. However, given that Rubin benefited from a number of international trips, including resort accommodations and business class travel to Bora Bora and Turkey, this production is wholly deficient. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 16 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding Your move to New York, NY in 2016 and 2017 and decision to stay in one or more Company-owned apartments . . . .” Rubin has produced only a handful of text messages concerning Plaintiff and her move to either 312 Bowery or 1320 Madison Avenue. Given the amount of time and resources used while in these properties, this production is wholly deficient. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 17 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding Your salary made during the time You resided in Company-owned apartments in New York . . . .” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 18 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the amounts You paid to live in Company-owned apartments in New York in 2016 and 2017 . . . .” Plaintiff previously agreed to produce documents sufficient to show amounts paid by Rubin, including living expenses, in connection with residing in properties owned by the Companies since 2015. This agreement to produce was already deficient and improperly ignored most of Defendants’ requests as stated in Defendants’ previous letter and attempt to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s Responses and Objections. To date, Rubin has produced select invoices and communications pertaining to maintenance of, FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 Evan Mandel, Esq. Donald Conklin, Esq. September 1, 2021 Page 5 and furnishing for, certain Company properties. While Rubin has produced some invoices from retailers such as Restoration Hardware and Best Buy, it is clear from the face of the invoice that many such expenses were paid by Bremen House, not Rubin. (See, e.g.,TEKINER00025601; TEKINER00025679) Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 19 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding costs incurred by the Companies during Your occupancy of 312–314 Bowery, New York, NY and 1320 Madison Avenue, New York, NY . . . .” While Rubin has produced some invoices from retailers such as Restoration Hardware and Best Buy reflecting expenses paid by Bremen House (see, e.g.,TEKINER00025601; TEKINER00025679), given the amount of time and resources used while in these properties, this production is wholly deficient. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 20 – Aside from select text messages with a passing reference to Plaintiff’s demands that Company properties be renovated to reflect her tastes, Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding renovations or updates made to 312–314 Bowery, New York, NY or 1320 Madison Avenue, New York, NY in 2016 or 2017.” Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 21 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding any direct or indirect monetary benefit You have derived from the Companies or the Trust . . . .” To date, Defendants have received no documents showing any direct or indirect monetary benefit Rubin derived from the Companies or the Trust, including but not limited to (1) cash payments to Yasemin in the form of salary, gifts, bonuses, dividends, distributions, or reimbursements; and (2) expenses incurred by the Companies or the Trust on behalf of You or Yasemin, such as living, food, clothing, or travel expenses. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 22 – This Request seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding any living accommodations provided to You by the Companies. . . .” To date, Defendants have received no documents regarding any living accommodations provided to Rubin by the Companies, including but not limited to any apartments, homes, townhomes, or hotels in which Rubin stayed or are staying, whether owned by the Defendants or not. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. • Request No. 23 – Rubin has produced no responsive documents for this Request, which seeks “[a]ll documents and communications regarding the decision to file the Complaint in the instant Action or sue the Defendants” beyond Rubin’s being copied on emails collecting and submitted responsive communications to counsel. They do not include, for example, communications solely between Plaintiff and Rubin. Defendants demand that all documents responsive to this Request be produced immediately. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/15/2022 11:57 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 482 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/15/2022 Evan Mandel, Esq. Donald Conklin, Esq. September 1, 2021 Page 6 Demand to Produce In light of the parties’ previous discussions and earlier meet-and-confer on the Rubin subpoena, please consider this letter to be Defendants’ final attempt to resolve the issues regarding production of documents responsive to the Subpoena noted above. In the event, however, that Rubin does not complete her production of documents responsive to the Subpoena, or confirm for each Request that she does not have responsive documents by September 10, 2021, Plaintiff will take appropriate action with the Court. In addition, Defendants will not proceed with the deposition of Ms. Rubin until the issues with her document production are satisfactorily resolved. Very truly yours, /s/ Sean M. Topping Sean M. Topping cc: Judith A. Archer, Esq., Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Victoria V. Corder, Esq., Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP