Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COMMERCIAL DIVISION, NEW YORK COUNTY
YASEMIN TEKINER,
in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary
and a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner
2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as Index No. 657193/2020
a holder of equitable interests in a
shareholder or a member of the Company Commercial Division Part 3
Defendants,
Hon. Joel M. Cohen
Plaintiff,
Mot. Seq. No. 34
-against-
BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE AFFIRMATION OF
TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, SCOTT W. PARKER
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.
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., 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.
1
1 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
SCOTT W. PARKER, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of
the State of New York, affirms under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to CPLR § 2106:
1. I am a partner of the law firm Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP, co-counsel for plaintiff
Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) in the above-captioned matter. I submit this affirmation in
opposition to Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash (NYSCEF Doc. No. ___.).
2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action, as set forth
herein, by virtue of my personal involvement as counsel and a review of the case files.
3. A true and correct copy of the August 9, 2022 email to Yasemin’s counsel enclosing
a copy of subpoena served by Yasemin on Santander Bank, N.A. (“Santander”) in this matter is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4. On August 29, 2022 at 5:56pm – i.e., twenty days after the Subpoena was served
and three days before Santander’s responses were due – I received a voicemail from Defendants’
counsel indicating for the first time that Defendants wished to discuss the scope of the Subpoena.
5. A true and correct copy of the August 29, 2022 email sent by Defendants’ counsel
at 9:36pm to Yasemin’s counsel indicating that Defendants “would like to meet and confer about
the scope of the Santander subpoena” is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
6. At no time on August 29th did Defendants indicate what their objections to the
Subpoena were.
7. A true and correct copy of the August 30, 2022 email sent by Yasemin’s counsel to
Defendants’ counsel: (1) advising that Yasemin would be happy to meet and confer about the
Subpoena, and (2) reminding Defendants of the Special Meeting that had not yet been scheduled,
despite Defendants’ counsel’s promise that itwould take place that week, is attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
2
2 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
8. A true and correct copy of the August 31, 2022 email from Defendants’ counsel to
Yasemin’s counsel, demanding that Yasemin “confirm by no later than 9:00am tomorrow” that
the response deadline would be extended “in order for the parties to meet and confer”, is attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
9. A true and correct copy of the August 31, 2022 response email from Yasemin’s
counsel to Defendants’ counsel, advising that counsel would speak with Yasemin and get back to
Defendants but that Yasemin could not agree to Defendants’ “arbitrary deadline of 9 am
tomorrow…particularly given that [Defendants] waited 20 days after your receipt of the subpoena
before even raising any potential issue”, is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
10. A true and correct copy of the September 1, 2022 email correspondence from
Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel advising that if Yasemin did “not confirm, by 2:30pm
today, [Yasemin’s] agreement to adjourn the return date,” Defendants would “contact the Court”
and “seek costs and fees” for a motion to quash due to Yasemin’s “refusal to meet and confer in
compliance with the Rule 14 procedure” is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
11. A true and correct copy of the September 1, 2022 email correspondence from
Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel confirming that, despite the fact that Defendants’
waited until the evening of August 29th to first contact Yasemin about the Subpoena, Yasemin
would agree to extend the response deadline to September 9, 2022, so long as Defendants agreed
to meet-and-confer by September 6, 2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
12. A true and correct copy of the September 1, 2022 email correspondence from
Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel offering to meet and confer on September 2, 2022 (i.e.,
the Friday before Labor Day weekend) at 4 pm is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
3
3 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
13. A true and correct copy of the September 3, 2022 email correspondence from
Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel, advising that Yasemin was available to meet and
confer on September 6, 2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
14. A true and correct copy of the September 5, 2022 email correspondence from
Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel sent at 9:57 pm, advising that Defendants’ would
circulate a dial in for a meet-and-confer the next day is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
15. On September 6, 2022 (i.e., 28 days after Defendants first received the subpoena),
the parties held a meet-and-confer, in which Defendants finally informed Yasemin, for the first
time, what their actual objections were to the Subpoena.
16. A true and correct copy of the September 7, 2022 email correspondence from
Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel, putting their objections to the Subpoena in writing for
the first time and demanding that Yasemin agree to adjourn the Subpoena’s return day “by 10am
tomorrow” or Defendants would contact the Court, is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
17. A true and correct copy of the September 8, 2022 email correspondence from
Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel, advising that Yasemin would agree to further extended
Santander’s response deadline to September 15, 2022, in order to allow the parties to continue the
meet-and-confer process, is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
18. A true and correct copy of the September 12, 2022 email correspondence from
Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel: (1) responding to each of Defendants’ objections;
(2) agreeing to modify the Subpoena to reflect certain of Defendants’ requests; and (3) requesting
that Defendants “kindly explain [any] remaining points of contention and provide legal authority
in support so that [the parties’] may continue a productive dialogue” is attached hereto as
Exhibit M.
4
4 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
19. A true and correct copy of the September 14, 2022, 5:41 pm email correspondence
from Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel, advising that: (1) “it does not appear that further
meeting and conferring will resolve Defendants’ objections;” (2) that the parties should therefore
just “submit[] Rule 14 letters to the Court;” and (3) demanding an additional adjournment of the
response deadline “until 2 weeks after the Court’s decision on the [not yet scheduled] Rule 14
conference” “by 10:00 am” the next day, is attached hereto as Exhibit N.
20. A true and correct copy of the September 15, 2022 email correspondence from
Yasemin’s counsel to Santander advising that: (1) Defendants had raised objections to Yasemin
about the Subpoena; (2) Defendants advised that they intended to raise those objections with Court
pursuant to Rule 14; and (3) Santander should contact Defendants’ counsel as to whether they are
going to respond to the subpoena is attached as Exhibit O.
21. Defendants made no further efforts to work with Yasemin and, instead, emailed the
Court requesting an emergency same-day conference. A true and correct copy of the September
15, 2022 email correspondence from Defendants’ counsel to the Court is attached as Exhibit P.
In that correspondence, counsel for defendants twice misrepresented Santander’s response
deadline as being September 16, 2022, rather than September 15, 2022:
We are counsel for Defendants in the above-captioned litigation. Counsel for all
parties are copied. We write to request the Court’s assistance to address an urgent
timing issue related to a pending third-party subpoena.
Plaintiff served a subpoena originally returnable September 1, which is presently
returnable tomorrow. …
Given tomorrow’s current deadline, Defendants request a brief conference as soon
as possible today. (emphasis in original)
22. On September 15, 2022, at 4:30 pm, the parties attended a telephonic
conference with the Court’s Law Clerk, Tiffany J. Klinger. At the conference, Ms. Kilinger
instructed Defendants that, if they wished to seek to quash the subpoena, they needed to
5
5 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
proceed by Order to Show Cause. Further, based upon Defendants’ misrepresentation, Ms.
Kilnger told the Defendants that they had until September 16, 2022 to file.
WHEREFORE, Yasemin respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order denying
Defendants’ motion.
Dated: New York, New York
September 23, 2022 /s/ Scott W. Parker
Scott W. Parker
6
6 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO COMMERCIAL DIVISION RULE 17
I hereby certify that the foregoing Affirmation complies with Rule 17 of subdivision (g) of
section 202.70 of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (Rules of Practice
for the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court), and has a word of less than 7,000 words.
Dated: New York, New York
September 23, 2022 /s/ Scott W. Parker
Scott W. Parker
7
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION, NEW YORK COUNTY YASEMIN TEKINER, in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as Index No. 657193/2020 a holder of equitable interests in a shareholder or a member of the Company Commercial Division Part 3 Defendants, Hon. Joel M. Cohen Plaintiff, Mot. Seq. No. 34 -against- BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE AFFIRMATION OF TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, SCOTT W. PARKER 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. 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., 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. 1 1 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 SCOTT W. PARKER, Esq., an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, affirms under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to CPLR § 2106: 1. I am a partner of the law firm Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP, co-counsel for plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) in the above-captioned matter. I submit this affirmation in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash (NYSCEF Doc. No. ___.). 2. I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action, as set forth herein, by virtue of my personal involvement as counsel and a review of the case files. 3. A true and correct copy of the August 9, 2022 email to Yasemin’s counsel enclosing a copy of subpoena served by Yasemin on Santander Bank, N.A. (“Santander”) in this matter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. On August 29, 2022 at 5:56pm – i.e., twenty days after the Subpoena was served and three days before Santander’s responses were due – I received a voicemail from Defendants’ counsel indicating for the first time that Defendants wished to discuss the scope of the Subpoena. 5. A true and correct copy of the August 29, 2022 email sent by Defendants’ counsel at 9:36pm to Yasemin’s counsel indicating that Defendants “would like to meet and confer about the scope of the Santander subpoena” is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 6. At no time on August 29th did Defendants indicate what their objections to the Subpoena were. 7. A true and correct copy of the August 30, 2022 email sent by Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel: (1) advising that Yasemin would be happy to meet and confer about the Subpoena, and (2) reminding Defendants of the Special Meeting that had not yet been scheduled, despite Defendants’ counsel’s promise that itwould take place that week, is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 2 2 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 8. A true and correct copy of the August 31, 2022 email from Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel, demanding that Yasemin “confirm by no later than 9:00am tomorrow” that the response deadline would be extended “in order for the parties to meet and confer”, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 9. A true and correct copy of the August 31, 2022 response email from Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel, advising that counsel would speak with Yasemin and get back to Defendants but that Yasemin could not agree to Defendants’ “arbitrary deadline of 9 am tomorrow…particularly given that [Defendants] waited 20 days after your receipt of the subpoena before even raising any potential issue”, is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 10. A true and correct copy of the September 1, 2022 email correspondence from Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel advising that if Yasemin did “not confirm, by 2:30pm today, [Yasemin’s] agreement to adjourn the return date,” Defendants would “contact the Court” and “seek costs and fees” for a motion to quash due to Yasemin’s “refusal to meet and confer in compliance with the Rule 14 procedure” is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 11. A true and correct copy of the September 1, 2022 email correspondence from Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel confirming that, despite the fact that Defendants’ waited until the evening of August 29th to first contact Yasemin about the Subpoena, Yasemin would agree to extend the response deadline to September 9, 2022, so long as Defendants agreed to meet-and-confer by September 6, 2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 12. A true and correct copy of the September 1, 2022 email correspondence from Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel offering to meet and confer on September 2, 2022 (i.e., the Friday before Labor Day weekend) at 4 pm is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 3 3 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 13. A true and correct copy of the September 3, 2022 email correspondence from Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel, advising that Yasemin was available to meet and confer on September 6, 2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit I. 14. A true and correct copy of the September 5, 2022 email correspondence from Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel sent at 9:57 pm, advising that Defendants’ would circulate a dial in for a meet-and-confer the next day is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 15. On September 6, 2022 (i.e., 28 days after Defendants first received the subpoena), the parties held a meet-and-confer, in which Defendants finally informed Yasemin, for the first time, what their actual objections were to the Subpoena. 16. A true and correct copy of the September 7, 2022 email correspondence from Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel, putting their objections to the Subpoena in writing for the first time and demanding that Yasemin agree to adjourn the Subpoena’s return day “by 10am tomorrow” or Defendants would contact the Court, is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 17. A true and correct copy of the September 8, 2022 email correspondence from Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel, advising that Yasemin would agree to further extended Santander’s response deadline to September 15, 2022, in order to allow the parties to continue the meet-and-confer process, is attached hereto as Exhibit L. 18. A true and correct copy of the September 12, 2022 email correspondence from Yasemin’s counsel to Defendants’ counsel: (1) responding to each of Defendants’ objections; (2) agreeing to modify the Subpoena to reflect certain of Defendants’ requests; and (3) requesting that Defendants “kindly explain [any] remaining points of contention and provide legal authority in support so that [the parties’] may continue a productive dialogue” is attached hereto as Exhibit M. 4 4 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 19. A true and correct copy of the September 14, 2022, 5:41 pm email correspondence from Defendants’ counsel to Yasemin’s counsel, advising that: (1) “it does not appear that further meeting and conferring will resolve Defendants’ objections;” (2) that the parties should therefore just “submit[] Rule 14 letters to the Court;” and (3) demanding an additional adjournment of the response deadline “until 2 weeks after the Court’s decision on the [not yet scheduled] Rule 14 conference” “by 10:00 am” the next day, is attached hereto as Exhibit N. 20. A true and correct copy of the September 15, 2022 email correspondence from Yasemin’s counsel to Santander advising that: (1) Defendants had raised objections to Yasemin about the Subpoena; (2) Defendants advised that they intended to raise those objections with Court pursuant to Rule 14; and (3) Santander should contact Defendants’ counsel as to whether they are going to respond to the subpoena is attached as Exhibit O. 21. Defendants made no further efforts to work with Yasemin and, instead, emailed the Court requesting an emergency same-day conference. A true and correct copy of the September 15, 2022 email correspondence from Defendants’ counsel to the Court is attached as Exhibit P. In that correspondence, counsel for defendants twice misrepresented Santander’s response deadline as being September 16, 2022, rather than September 15, 2022: We are counsel for Defendants in the above-captioned litigation. Counsel for all parties are copied. We write to request the Court’s assistance to address an urgent timing issue related to a pending third-party subpoena. Plaintiff served a subpoena originally returnable September 1, which is presently returnable tomorrow. … Given tomorrow’s current deadline, Defendants request a brief conference as soon as possible today. (emphasis in original) 22. On September 15, 2022, at 4:30 pm, the parties attended a telephonic conference with the Court’s Law Clerk, Tiffany J. Klinger. At the conference, Ms. Kilinger instructed Defendants that, if they wished to seek to quash the subpoena, they needed to 5 5 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 proceed by Order to Show Cause. Further, based upon Defendants’ misrepresentation, Ms. Kilnger told the Defendants that they had until September 16, 2022 to file. WHEREFORE, Yasemin respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order denying Defendants’ motion. Dated: New York, New York September 23, 2022 /s/ Scott W. Parker Scott W. Parker 6 6 of 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/23/2022 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 699 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/23/2022 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO COMMERCIAL DIVISION RULE 17 I hereby certify that the foregoing Affirmation complies with Rule 17 of subdivision (g) of section 202.70 of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (Rules of Practice for the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court), and has a word of less than 7,000 words. Dated: New York, New York September 23, 2022 /s/ Scott W. Parker Scott W. Parker 7 7 of 7