Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022
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
Motion Sequence #26
shareholder or a member of the Company
Defendants,
Plaintiff,
-against-
BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS
COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA
TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity
as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011
Descendants Trust,
Defendants.
ZEYNEP TEKINER,
in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary
and a Trustee of The Zeynep Tekiner 2011
Descendants Trust and derivatively as a
holder of equitable interests in a
shareholder or a member of the Company
Defendants,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
-against-
BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS
COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA
TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity
as a Trustee of The Zeynep Tekiner 2011
Descendants Trust,
Defendants.
1 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANTS’
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
OMNIBUS MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF AND
LISA RUBIN AND TO QUASH OR LIMIT SUBPOENAS TO
PAUL SCHWARTZMAN AND RAISH LLC
Judith A. Archer
Victoria V. Corder
Sean M. Topping
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6022
+1 212 318-3000
Counsel for Defendants
2
2 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 2
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 3
3 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors LLC,
2006 NYLJ LEXIS 754 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2006) ......................................................... 3
Coopersmith v. Gold,
156 Misc. 2d 594 (1992) ............................................................................................................ 2
Fruhling v. Westreich,
2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 451 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Feb. 2, 2022) ................................................ 3
Mancheski v. Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners,
39 A.D.3d 499 (2d Dep’t 2007) ................................................................................................. 2
MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 367 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2013)................................................. 3
Resort Cayman Holdings, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Invs. LLC,
2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2104 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. May 15, 2020)............................................ 3
In re Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
190 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1993) ..................................................................... 2
Other Authorities
22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 216.1(a) ................................................................................................................. 2
4 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022
Defendants, Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner, Gonca
(“Tekiner”) Chelsea, and Billur Akipek (“Defendants”), upon the accompanying emergency
affirmation of Judith A. Archer (the “Emergency Affirmation”), submit this memorandum of law
in support of their motion to seal all of certain documents and exhibits annexed to the Affirmation
of Judith A. Archer, dated June 21, 2022 (the “Archer Affirmation”), submitted in support of
Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendants’ Omnibus Motion to
Compel Documents from Plaintiff and Lisa Rubin and to Quash or to Limit the Subpoenas to Paul
Schwartzman and Raish LLC (“Defendants’ Reply”).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 23, 2021, this Court entered a Stipulation and Order for the Production and
Exchange of Confidential Information (NYSCEF No. 91) (the “Confidentiality Stipulation”) in the
above-captioned case. The Confidentiality Stipulation provides that any Party who seeks to file
with the Court any deposition transcripts or other documents which have been previously been
designated as comprising or containing confidential information or any pleading, brief or
memorandum which reproduces, paraphrases or discloses such confidential information shall
submit such document in redacted form until the Court renders a decision on any motion to seal.
In connection with Defendants’ Reply, Defendants seek to have sealed certain documents
filed on that Motion (see Archer Affirmation, Ex. A), including
• Archer Exhibit A – Text messages between Lisa Rubin and Yasemin Tekiner, dated
September 24, 2019 [TEKINER00122948] (NYSCEF No. 523);
• Archer Exhibit B – Text messages between Lisa Rubin and Yasemin Tekiner, dated
November 11, 2019 [TEKINER00121570] (NYSCEF No. 524);
• Archer Exhibit C – Text messages between Lisa Rubin and Yasemin Tekiner, dated
1
5 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022
November 18, 2019 [TEKINER00123354] (NYSCEF No. 525); and
• Archer Exhibit D – Email from Yasemin Tekiner to Stephen Younger, dated December 11,
2020 [TEKINER00001810] (NYSCEF No. 526).
These documents are text messages that have been designated by Plaintiffs as confidential
pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation as these materials contain sensitive business information
and/or personal potentially identifying information. At least until such time as the Court can rule
on this sealing motion, the testimony extracts and the exhibits submitted on Defendants’ Reply,
which Defendants have designated as confidential, should remain confidential.
ARGUMENT
Pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 216.1(a), a court may “enter an order . . . sealing the court
records, whether in whole or in part” upon a “written finding of good cause.” In determining
whether there is good cause, the court should “weigh[] the interests of the public against the
interests of the parties.” Mancheski v. Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499, 502 (2d
Dep’t 2007). In finding good cause to seal documents, the Court “presupposes that public access
to the documents at issue will likely result in harm to a compelling interest of the movant…, and
that no alternative to sealing can adequately protect the threatened interest.” Id. at 502. Good
cause “boils down to . . . the prudent exercise of the court’s discretion.” Id. at 502 (citing
Coopersmith v. Gold, 156 Misc. 2d 594, 606 (1992). “[C]onfidentiality is, in certain circumstances,
necessary in order to protect the litigants . . . .” In re Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190
A.D.2d 483, 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1993). “When the balance [of interests] favors
confidentiality, confidentiality should be provided.” Id. at 486.
In the present matter, Defendants have designated as confidential certain documents that
are relevant to Defendants’ Reply. By designating these documents confidential, Defendants have
2
6 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022
asserted that the public does not have a discernible interest in non-public business and personal
matters that may be reflected in the exhibits. New York courts have held that “sensitive proprietary
and business information” should be sealed where “the parties have an interest in protecting and
there is no countervailing public interest that would furthered by their disclosure.” Cohen v.
S.A.C. Capital Advisors LLC, 2006 NYLJ LEXIS 754, at *19 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2006).
The same rule is applied to personal identifying information, MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 367, at *9 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2013), and private
and sensitive information, Fruhling v. Westreich, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 451, at *3 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cty. Feb. 2, 2022).
As referenced above, by designating them Confidential, Defendants have maintained that
the designated information reflected in the exhibits and the text messages produced and designated
confidential by Plaintiff in discovery that are being submitted with the Defendants’ Reply contain
sensitive proprietary and business information and/or private and potentially identifying
information. If Defendants’ designations are accepted, good cause exists for sealing the exhibits
because the public would have no compelling interest in having access to such information.
Moreover, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to reflect the matters designated as
confidential pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation, which could well render any burden on
the public’s interest minimal while protecting the asserted interests of the Defendants. See Resort
Cayman Holdings, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Invs. LLC, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2104, at *3 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Cty. May 15, 2020).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court seal the exhibits
submitted herein, at least until such time as the Court can rule on this sealing motion.
3
7 of 8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022
Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,
June 21, 2022
/s/ Judith A. Archer
Judith A. Archer
Victoria Corder
Sean M. Topping
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
(212) 318-3342
judith.archer@nortonrosefulbright.com
4
8 of 8
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022 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 Motion Sequence #26 shareholder or a member of the Company Defendants, Plaintiff, -against- BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, Defendants. ZEYNEP TEKINER, in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The Zeynep Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable interests in a shareholder or a member of the Company Defendants, Intervenor-Plaintiff, -against- BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity as a Trustee of The Zeynep Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, Defendants. 1 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OMNIBUS MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFF AND LISA RUBIN AND TO QUASH OR LIMIT SUBPOENAS TO PAUL SCHWARTZMAN AND RAISH LLC Judith A. Archer Victoria V. Corder Sean M. Topping NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6022 +1 212 318-3000 Counsel for Defendants 2 2 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 3 3 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors LLC, 2006 NYLJ LEXIS 754 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2006) ......................................................... 3 Coopersmith v. Gold, 156 Misc. 2d 594 (1992) ............................................................................................................ 2 Fruhling v. Westreich, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 451 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Feb. 2, 2022) ................................................ 3 Mancheski v. Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499 (2d Dep’t 2007) ................................................................................................. 2 MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 367 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2013)................................................. 3 Resort Cayman Holdings, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Invs. LLC, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2104 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. May 15, 2020)............................................ 3 In re Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190 A.D.2d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1993) ..................................................................... 2 Other Authorities 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 216.1(a) ................................................................................................................. 2 4 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022 Defendants, Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner, Gonca (“Tekiner”) Chelsea, and Billur Akipek (“Defendants”), upon the accompanying emergency affirmation of Judith A. Archer (the “Emergency Affirmation”), submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion to seal all of certain documents and exhibits annexed to the Affirmation of Judith A. Archer, dated June 21, 2022 (the “Archer Affirmation”), submitted in support of Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendants’ Omnibus Motion to Compel Documents from Plaintiff and Lisa Rubin and to Quash or to Limit the Subpoenas to Paul Schwartzman and Raish LLC (“Defendants’ Reply”). STATEMENT OF FACTS On February 23, 2021, this Court entered a Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information (NYSCEF No. 91) (the “Confidentiality Stipulation”) in the above-captioned case. The Confidentiality Stipulation provides that any Party who seeks to file with the Court any deposition transcripts or other documents which have been previously been designated as comprising or containing confidential information or any pleading, brief or memorandum which reproduces, paraphrases or discloses such confidential information shall submit such document in redacted form until the Court renders a decision on any motion to seal. In connection with Defendants’ Reply, Defendants seek to have sealed certain documents filed on that Motion (see Archer Affirmation, Ex. A), including • Archer Exhibit A – Text messages between Lisa Rubin and Yasemin Tekiner, dated September 24, 2019 [TEKINER00122948] (NYSCEF No. 523); • Archer Exhibit B – Text messages between Lisa Rubin and Yasemin Tekiner, dated November 11, 2019 [TEKINER00121570] (NYSCEF No. 524); • Archer Exhibit C – Text messages between Lisa Rubin and Yasemin Tekiner, dated 1 5 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022 November 18, 2019 [TEKINER00123354] (NYSCEF No. 525); and • Archer Exhibit D – Email from Yasemin Tekiner to Stephen Younger, dated December 11, 2020 [TEKINER00001810] (NYSCEF No. 526). These documents are text messages that have been designated by Plaintiffs as confidential pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation as these materials contain sensitive business information and/or personal potentially identifying information. At least until such time as the Court can rule on this sealing motion, the testimony extracts and the exhibits submitted on Defendants’ Reply, which Defendants have designated as confidential, should remain confidential. ARGUMENT Pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 216.1(a), a court may “enter an order . . . sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part” upon a “written finding of good cause.” In determining whether there is good cause, the court should “weigh[] the interests of the public against the interests of the parties.” Mancheski v. Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499, 502 (2d Dep’t 2007). In finding good cause to seal documents, the Court “presupposes that public access to the documents at issue will likely result in harm to a compelling interest of the movant…, and that no alternative to sealing can adequately protect the threatened interest.” Id. at 502. Good cause “boils down to . . . the prudent exercise of the court’s discretion.” Id. at 502 (citing Coopersmith v. Gold, 156 Misc. 2d 594, 606 (1992). “[C]onfidentiality is, in certain circumstances, necessary in order to protect the litigants . . . .” In re Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190 A.D.2d 483, 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1993). “When the balance [of interests] favors confidentiality, confidentiality should be provided.” Id. at 486. In the present matter, Defendants have designated as confidential certain documents that are relevant to Defendants’ Reply. By designating these documents confidential, Defendants have 2 6 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022 asserted that the public does not have a discernible interest in non-public business and personal matters that may be reflected in the exhibits. New York courts have held that “sensitive proprietary and business information” should be sealed where “the parties have an interest in protecting and there is no countervailing public interest that would furthered by their disclosure.” Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors LLC, 2006 NYLJ LEXIS 754, at *19 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2006). The same rule is applied to personal identifying information, MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 367, at *9 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan. 3, 2013), and private and sensitive information, Fruhling v. Westreich, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 451, at *3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Feb. 2, 2022). As referenced above, by designating them Confidential, Defendants have maintained that the designated information reflected in the exhibits and the text messages produced and designated confidential by Plaintiff in discovery that are being submitted with the Defendants’ Reply contain sensitive proprietary and business information and/or private and potentially identifying information. If Defendants’ designations are accepted, good cause exists for sealing the exhibits because the public would have no compelling interest in having access to such information. Moreover, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to reflect the matters designated as confidential pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation, which could well render any burden on the public’s interest minimal while protecting the asserted interests of the Defendants. See Resort Cayman Holdings, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Invs. LLC, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2104, at *3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. May 15, 2020). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court seal the exhibits submitted herein, at least until such time as the Court can rule on this sealing motion. 3 7 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/21/2022 10:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 547 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/21/2022 Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted, June 21, 2022 /s/ Judith A. Archer Judith A. Archer Victoria Corder Sean M. Topping NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 (212) 318-3342 judith.archer@nortonrosefulbright.com 4 8 of 8