On December 21, 2020 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
Yasemin Tekiner,
Yasemin Tekiner
In Her Individual Capacity, As A Beneficiary And A Trustee Of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust And Derivatively As A Holder Of Equitable Interests In A Shareholder Or A Member Of The Company Defendants,
and
254-258 W. 35Th St. Llc,
Berrin Tekiner,
Billur Akipek
In Her Capacity As A Trustee Of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust,
Bremen House Inc.,
Bremen House Texas, Inc.,
German News Company, Inc.,
German News Texas, Inc.,
Gonca Tekiner,
Zeynep Tekiner,
for Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2022 03:01 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 820 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2022
EXHIBIT 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2022 03:01 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 820 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2022
Meghan E. Hill
Direct Tel: 212-326-0808
Direct Fax: 212-326-0806
MHill@PRYORCASHMAN.com
October 24, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Scott W. Parker, Esq.
Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP
5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371
New York, New York 10001
Re: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. et al., Index No. 657193/2020
Dear Scott:
We write in response to your letter, dated October 22, 2022 but transmitted late last night,
October 23, 2022 at 11:27pm, demanding that “Defendants provide their consent to service of …
subpoenas” to a number of medical providers and “execute … HIPAA authorizations for each
subpoena recipient” by no later than today, “October 24, 2022 at 5 pm.” This unreasonable, last-
minute demand is entirely improper for a number of reasons.
Initially, as you know, after entry of the August 17, 2022 Order resolving Motion Sequence
22, Plaintiff waited over 30 days before issuing a list of “revised” requests (the “New Requests”)
purportedly complying with the Court’s explicit guidance for discovery relating to medical
information of the Individual Defendants. We promptly responded on September 23, 2022,
explaining in detail that the New Requests neither complied with the Court’s August 17 Order, nor
the direction given by the Court on the record. We further offered to meet and confer concerning
the New Requests, and reaffirmed that we would produce documents in response to any demand
that complied with the Court’s Order and guidance.
Plaintiff never responded, instead waiting an additional two weeks before – on October 4,
2022, the eve of filing a discovery motion – unilaterally declaring that “any further meet-and-
confer would be useless.” Accordingly, the statement in your letter that “the parties have
extensively met and conferred on this issue” is flatly untrue. The parties have never met and
1
conferred about the New Requests, because Plaintiff refused to do so.
1
Although the parties met and conferred on various discovery issues on September 6, 2022, the only discussion
concerning discovery related to medical information consisted of Plaintiffagreeing to serve revised requests as
directed by the Court. No substantive conferral between the parties concerning the New Requests (which had not yet
been served) was had at that time or ever.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2022 03:01 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 820 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2022
Scott W. Parker, Esq.
October 24, 2022
Page 2
Plaintiff’s contrived attempt to end-run both the Court’s Order and the meet and confer
process is improper. Defendants decline to sign any HIPAA authorization, or to facilitate the
process of serving any improper subpoenas on the medical providers listed in your letter.
To the extent you include any part of your letter or the attached subpoenas in a submission
to the Court, you are directed to include a copy of this letter.
This letter is without prejudice to any of Defendants’ rights and remedies, all of which are
hereby reserved.
Very truly yours,
Meghan E. Hill
cc: Counsel of Record (via email)
Document Filed Date
October 25, 2022
Case Filing Date
December 21, 2020
Category
Commercial Division
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2022 03:01 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 820 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2022 EXHIBIT 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2022 03:01 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 820 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2022 Meghan E. Hill Direct Tel: 212-326-0808 Direct Fax: 212-326-0806 MHill@PRYORCASHMAN.com October 24, 2022 VIA EMAIL Scott W. Parker, Esq. Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 New York, New York 10001 Re: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. et al., Index No. 657193/2020 Dear Scott: We write in response to your letter, dated October 22, 2022 but transmitted late last night, October 23, 2022 at 11:27pm, demanding that “Defendants provide their consent to service of … subpoenas” to a number of medical providers and “execute … HIPAA authorizations for each subpoena recipient” by no later than today, “October 24, 2022 at 5 pm.” This unreasonable, last- minute demand is entirely improper for a number of reasons. Initially, as you know, after entry of the August 17, 2022 Order resolving Motion Sequence 22, Plaintiff waited over 30 days before issuing a list of “revised” requests (the “New Requests”) purportedly complying with the Court’s explicit guidance for discovery relating to medical information of the Individual Defendants. We promptly responded on September 23, 2022, explaining in detail that the New Requests neither complied with the Court’s August 17 Order, nor the direction given by the Court on the record. We further offered to meet and confer concerning the New Requests, and reaffirmed that we would produce documents in response to any demand that complied with the Court’s Order and guidance. Plaintiff never responded, instead waiting an additional two weeks before – on October 4, 2022, the eve of filing a discovery motion – unilaterally declaring that “any further meet-and- confer would be useless.” Accordingly, the statement in your letter that “the parties have extensively met and conferred on this issue” is flatly untrue. The parties have never met and 1 conferred about the New Requests, because Plaintiff refused to do so. 1 Although the parties met and conferred on various discovery issues on September 6, 2022, the only discussion concerning discovery related to medical information consisted of Plaintiffagreeing to serve revised requests as directed by the Court. No substantive conferral between the parties concerning the New Requests (which had not yet been served) was had at that time or ever. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/25/2022 03:01 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 820 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/25/2022 Scott W. Parker, Esq. October 24, 2022 Page 2 Plaintiff’s contrived attempt to end-run both the Court’s Order and the meet and confer process is improper. Defendants decline to sign any HIPAA authorization, or to facilitate the process of serving any improper subpoenas on the medical providers listed in your letter. To the extent you include any part of your letter or the attached subpoenas in a submission to the Court, you are directed to include a copy of this letter. This letter is without prejudice to any of Defendants’ rights and remedies, all of which are hereby reserved. Very truly yours, Meghan E. Hill cc: Counsel of Record (via email)