Preview
Writer’s Direct Contact:
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 908.333.6220 (Tel.)
212.596.7036 (Fax)
scott.parker@piblaw.com
www.piblaw.com
December 15, 2022
VIA NYSCEF
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of New York – Commercial Division
60 Centre Street, Courtroom 208
New York, New York 10007
Re: Yasemin Tekiner, et al. v. Bremen House Inc., et al.
Index No.: 657193/2020
Dear Justice Cohen:
This firm is co-counsel to Co-Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) in the above-
referenced matter, and in this application, Yasemin respectfully requests that this Court enter an
Order setting revised discovery deadlines in light of multiple different aspects of fact discovery
that need to be completed. To be clear, this is not an application that Yasemin wants to make, nor
one that she should need make in light of Your Honor’s clear directives and orders throughout this
litigation. Rather, this is an application necessitated solely by Defendants’ ongoing failure to
comply with their discovery obligations, in order to avoid significant prejudice to Yasemin. This
application does not relate to any new issues; rather, it relates to issues that the parties and the
Court have been addressing for many months.
Pursuant to this Court’s so-ordered Stipulation Setting Revised Discovery Deadlines that
was entered on August 1, 2022: (1) the deadline to complete fact discovery was scheduled for
October 17, 2022; (2) the deadline for CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosure was scheduled for
November 15, 2022 (since extended to December 15, 2022); (3) the end date for all discovery was
scheduled for December 27, 2022; (4) the deadline to file the note of issue was scheduled for
December 28, 2022; and (5) the deadline for filing dispositive motions was scheduled for January
27, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 659.)
On October 5, 2022, Yasemin and co-plaintiff Zeynep Tekiner (“Zeynep”) filed an order
to show cause to appoint a special discovery master and to compel Defendants to comply with this
Court’s prior orders. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 659.) On December 6, 2022, this Court issued an order
denying the request to appoint a special discovery master, but granting the request to compel
Defendants to comply with this Court’s prior orders. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 888.) Unfortunately,
however, there are still numerous outstanding discovery issues that relate to this Court’s prior
orders (and otherwise). For example:
Withheld privileged documents: On August 17, 2022, this Court ordered that Yasemin’s
“motion to compel is granted in part to the extent that Defendants’ categorical assertion of privilege
with respect to corporate business-related documents is overly broad” (the “August 17th Order”).
Beginning on September 23 (i.e., nearly six weeks after the August 17th Order), Defendants finally
began a “rolling production” of certain of the 9,539 documents that Defendants previously
New York Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 – New York, New York 10001 – 212.596.7037
New Jersey Office: 270 Davidson Avenue – Somerset, New Jersey 08873 – 908.725.9700
BOSTON – NEW JERSEY – NEW YORK – ORANGE COUNTY – PHILADELPHIAFH11169315.1
withheld as privileged – and this production included key, critical documents literally produced
during the depositions of the parties in mid-October.
After Defendants finally completed their belated production, Defendants sent Yasemin an
amended privilege log that reflected Defendants were still withholding more than 1,000 documents
as privileged. On November 22 and 30, 2022, the parties exchanged Rule 14 letters regarding this
issue, and the Court held a telephonic conference on December 5, 2022 to address this (and
multiple other outstanding discovery issues). At the conference, this Court instructed Yasemin to
identify for Defendants which of the e-mails/documents from Defendants’ amended privilege log
that Yasemin believed were being wrongfully withheld as privileged.
On December 13, 2022, Yasemin identified for Defendants more than 800 documents that
Yasemin believes Defendants are still wrongfully withholding as privileged, including:
(1) emails/attachments where Yasemin and/or Zeynep are listed as recipients; (2)
emails/attachments with Norton Rose; (3) emails/attachments among non-attorneys; (4)
emails/attachments from Billur Akipek regarding trusts or Yasemin’s position within the
Company; and (5) emails/attachments sent while Yasemin was a director/officer at the time they
were sent. Unless Defendants agree to produce to Yasemin all of these requested documents,
Yasemin will be required to file a motion to compel their production.
Mental health documents: On August 17, 2022, this Court overruled Defendants’
objections to all mental health discovery, finding that such discovery was appropriate so long as it
was conducted in a “narrow” fashion. In response, Yasemin sent Defendants a list of ten narrow
document requests, but the parties were unable to reach an agreement as to the scope of which of
those requests to which Defendants would produce responsive documents. Plaintiffs raised these
issues in their October 5, 2022 order to show cause to appoint a special discovery master, and the
Court held a conference on October 27, 2022 to further address the issue. Thereafter, Yasemin
met-and-conferred with Defendants on November 7, 2022, and again on November 10, 2022. Also
on November 10, 2022, Defendants produced a limited number of mental health documents, but
have produced nothing further since that time.
On November 22 and 30, 2022, the parties exchanged Rule 14 letters regarding this issue,
and the Court held a telephonic conference on December 5, 2022. During the conference, the
Court invited Yasemin to file a motion to compel Defendants to provide the requisite consent for
the hospital subpoenas pursuant to CPLR 3122(a)(1).
Banking statements: On August 9, 2022, Yasemin issued a subpoena to Santander Bank,
N.A. for certain relevant banking documents. Santander did not object to the subpoena, but on
September 16, 2022, Defendants moved to quash it. On October 25, 2022, this Court issued an
Order denying Defendants’ motion to quash. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 840.) The next day, Yasemin
wrote to Santander enclosing the Court order and requesting the production of the subpoenaed
documents.
Since that time, Santander has produced some of the banking records, but not all of them.
On December 5, 2022, after having received Santander’s initial production of records, Yasemin
wrote to Santander to identify the deficiencies in that production. The next day, Santander
responded that they would “get started” on this. As of the date of this letter, however, Santander
has not yet provided the balance of the subpoenaed documents.
2
FH11169315.1
Subpoenas to Phil Michaels & Allen Beck: On October 27, 2022, Defendants sent to
Yasemin their responses and objections to subpoenas issued to Mr. Michaels and Mr. Beck. On
November 10, 2022, the parties discussed these responses and objections with the Court. On
November 22 and 30, 2022, the parties exchanged Rule 14 letters regarding this issue, and the
Court held a telephonic conference on December 5, 2022. At the conference, Defendants agreed
to submit revised responses and objections to the subpoenas. On December 14, 2022, Defendants
received Mr. Michaels’ and Mr. Beck’s revised responses and objections to the subpoenas. While
Yasemin is stillreviewing those responses, itis apparent that she will be required to move to
compel the production of documents requested in those subpoenas. And, once that issue has been
resolved, Yasemin intends to proceed with their depositions.
Re-depositions of the individual defendants: On October 27, 2022, this Court indicated
that Yasemin and Zeynep would be permitted to re-depose the individual defendants “to the extent
defendants have produced documents after witnesses have been deposed.” As soon as Defendants
have produced the documents set forth above, Yasemin and Zeynep intend to pursue expeditiously
these limited re-depositions.
Deposition of Sadan Gurbuzturk: On September 17, 2022, Yasemin noticed the
deposition of Ms. Gurbuzturk (i.e., the Company’s bookkeeper) for October 14, 2022. Defendants
declined to comply. Instead, on September 27, 2022, Defendants stated that “[w]ith respect to
Sadan Gurbuzturk, an employee of the Company Defendants, pursuant to CPLR 3106(d), Gonca
Tekiner Chelsea, President of Bremen House, Inc., will be produced in place of Ms. Gurbuzturk.”
Defendants failed to provide any justification for this substitution.
At the deposition of Gonca Chelsea conducted on October 12, 2022, she testified that she
“[didn’t] know” that “she’s here” for Sadan, and that nobody ever told as much. Moreover, Ms.
Chelsea testified that “accounting stuff” was not her “area of expertise” – and, when Ms. Chelsea
was asked if she was familiar with the bookkeeping of the Company Defendants, she testified: “I
am familiar with what I need to do my job but I’m not the bookkeeper so this would be a question
more for accounting or bookkeeping.” She identified Ms. Gurbuzturk as the bookkeeper who was
familiar with the books and records of the Company Defendants, who used QuickBooks to keep
the accounting (a program Ms. Chelsea testified she did not use), and to whom she would turn for
documents printed off QuickBooks. Further, Ms. Chelsea testified that Ms. Gurbuzturk “tracks
bills” and “tracks rents” for the Company Defendants, and provides information to the Company
Defendants’ accountants to prepare their financial statements. As such, at the conclusion of Ms.
Chelsea’s deposition, Yasemin reserved all of her rights – including, but not limited to, seeking
Ms. Gurbuzturk’s deposition.
On October 20, 2022, Yasemin wrote to Defendants demanding that Defendants produce
Ms. Gurbuzturk for her deposition, and asked for three potential dates for that deposition to take
place in November 2022. Defendants failed to respond, and have continued to ignore Yasemin’s
multiple follow-ups regarding this issue.
Deposition of Paul Schwartzman: On August 17, 2022, this Court denied Defendants’
motion to quash Yasemin’s subpoena to Mr. Schwartzman. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 681.) The next
day, Yasemin wrote to Mr. Schwartzman, enclosing this Court’s order and requesting that he
produce any non-corporate documents in his possession in response to the subpoena and advise as
to his availability for a deposition in September. While Mr. Schwartzman appeared to be
cooperative for a brief period of time, he has now become completely unresponsive. And, as set
3
FH11169315.1
forth in Yasemin’s reply brief in further support of her order to show cause for a special discovery
master, due to Defendants’ treatment of Paul Schwartzman, he fears retribution if deposed. In
light of Mr. Schwartzman’s non-responsiveness, Yasemin must now move to compel Mr.
Schwartzman to respond to the subpoena.
It appears that Defendants’ strategy is to “run out the clock” on discovery, in order to avoid
their Court-ordered discovery obligations. In light of the foregoing, and the anticipated time it will
take to obtain Defendants’ compliance, Yasemin respectfully proposes the following updated
discovery schedule for the Court’s consideration:
The deadline to complete fact discovery shall be February 14, 2023;
The deadline for CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosure shall be February 28, 2023;
The end date for all discovery shall be March 21, 2023;
The deadline to file the note of issue shall be March 22, 2023; and
The deadline for filing dispositive motions shall be April 12, 2023.
We thank the Court for its consideration of this application.1
Respectfully submitted,
Scott W. Parker
1
Yesterday evening, Yasemin advised both the Court and Defendants’ counsel of her intent to
submit this request, and sought Defendants’ consent to the request.
4
FH11169315.1
Preview
Writer’s Direct Contact: PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP 908.333.6220 (Tel.) 212.596.7036 (Fax) scott.parker@piblaw.com www.piblaw.com December 15, 2022 VIA NYSCEF Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York – Commercial Division 60 Centre Street, Courtroom 208 New York, New York 10007 Re: Yasemin Tekiner, et al. v. Bremen House Inc., et al. Index No.: 657193/2020 Dear Justice Cohen: This firm is co-counsel to Co-Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Yasemin”) in the above- referenced matter, and in this application, Yasemin respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order setting revised discovery deadlines in light of multiple different aspects of fact discovery that need to be completed. To be clear, this is not an application that Yasemin wants to make, nor one that she should need make in light of Your Honor’s clear directives and orders throughout this litigation. Rather, this is an application necessitated solely by Defendants’ ongoing failure to comply with their discovery obligations, in order to avoid significant prejudice to Yasemin. This application does not relate to any new issues; rather, it relates to issues that the parties and the Court have been addressing for many months. Pursuant to this Court’s so-ordered Stipulation Setting Revised Discovery Deadlines that was entered on August 1, 2022: (1) the deadline to complete fact discovery was scheduled for October 17, 2022; (2) the deadline for CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosure was scheduled for November 15, 2022 (since extended to December 15, 2022); (3) the end date for all discovery was scheduled for December 27, 2022; (4) the deadline to file the note of issue was scheduled for December 28, 2022; and (5) the deadline for filing dispositive motions was scheduled for January 27, 2023. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 659.) On October 5, 2022, Yasemin and co-plaintiff Zeynep Tekiner (“Zeynep”) filed an order to show cause to appoint a special discovery master and to compel Defendants to comply with this Court’s prior orders. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 659.) On December 6, 2022, this Court issued an order denying the request to appoint a special discovery master, but granting the request to compel Defendants to comply with this Court’s prior orders. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 888.) Unfortunately, however, there are still numerous outstanding discovery issues that relate to this Court’s prior orders (and otherwise). For example: Withheld privileged documents: On August 17, 2022, this Court ordered that Yasemin’s “motion to compel is granted in part to the extent that Defendants’ categorical assertion of privilege with respect to corporate business-related documents is overly broad” (the “August 17th Order”). Beginning on September 23 (i.e., nearly six weeks after the August 17th Order), Defendants finally began a “rolling production” of certain of the 9,539 documents that Defendants previously New York Office: 5 Penn Plaza, Suite 2371 – New York, New York 10001 – 212.596.7037 New Jersey Office: 270 Davidson Avenue – Somerset, New Jersey 08873 – 908.725.9700 BOSTON – NEW JERSEY – NEW YORK – ORANGE COUNTY – PHILADELPHIAFH11169315.1 withheld as privileged – and this production included key, critical documents literally produced during the depositions of the parties in mid-October. After Defendants finally completed their belated production, Defendants sent Yasemin an amended privilege log that reflected Defendants were still withholding more than 1,000 documents as privileged. On November 22 and 30, 2022, the parties exchanged Rule 14 letters regarding this issue, and the Court held a telephonic conference on December 5, 2022 to address this (and multiple other outstanding discovery issues). At the conference, this Court instructed Yasemin to identify for Defendants which of the e-mails/documents from Defendants’ amended privilege log that Yasemin believed were being wrongfully withheld as privileged. On December 13, 2022, Yasemin identified for Defendants more than 800 documents that Yasemin believes Defendants are still wrongfully withholding as privileged, including: (1) emails/attachments where Yasemin and/or Zeynep are listed as recipients; (2) emails/attachments with Norton Rose; (3) emails/attachments among non-attorneys; (4) emails/attachments from Billur Akipek regarding trusts or Yasemin’s position within the Company; and (5) emails/attachments sent while Yasemin was a director/officer at the time they were sent. Unless Defendants agree to produce to Yasemin all of these requested documents, Yasemin will be required to file a motion to compel their production. Mental health documents: On August 17, 2022, this Court overruled Defendants’ objections to all mental health discovery, finding that such discovery was appropriate so long as it was conducted in a “narrow” fashion. In response, Yasemin sent Defendants a list of ten narrow document requests, but the parties were unable to reach an agreement as to the scope of which of those requests to which Defendants would produce responsive documents. Plaintiffs raised these issues in their October 5, 2022 order to show cause to appoint a special discovery master, and the Court held a conference on October 27, 2022 to further address the issue. Thereafter, Yasemin met-and-conferred with Defendants on November 7, 2022, and again on November 10, 2022. Also on November 10, 2022, Defendants produced a limited number of mental health documents, but have produced nothing further since that time. On November 22 and 30, 2022, the parties exchanged Rule 14 letters regarding this issue, and the Court held a telephonic conference on December 5, 2022. During the conference, the Court invited Yasemin to file a motion to compel Defendants to provide the requisite consent for the hospital subpoenas pursuant to CPLR 3122(a)(1). Banking statements: On August 9, 2022, Yasemin issued a subpoena to Santander Bank, N.A. for certain relevant banking documents. Santander did not object to the subpoena, but on September 16, 2022, Defendants moved to quash it. On October 25, 2022, this Court issued an Order denying Defendants’ motion to quash. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 840.) The next day, Yasemin wrote to Santander enclosing the Court order and requesting the production of the subpoenaed documents. Since that time, Santander has produced some of the banking records, but not all of them. On December 5, 2022, after having received Santander’s initial production of records, Yasemin wrote to Santander to identify the deficiencies in that production. The next day, Santander responded that they would “get started” on this. As of the date of this letter, however, Santander has not yet provided the balance of the subpoenaed documents. 2 FH11169315.1 Subpoenas to Phil Michaels & Allen Beck: On October 27, 2022, Defendants sent to Yasemin their responses and objections to subpoenas issued to Mr. Michaels and Mr. Beck. On November 10, 2022, the parties discussed these responses and objections with the Court. On November 22 and 30, 2022, the parties exchanged Rule 14 letters regarding this issue, and the Court held a telephonic conference on December 5, 2022. At the conference, Defendants agreed to submit revised responses and objections to the subpoenas. On December 14, 2022, Defendants received Mr. Michaels’ and Mr. Beck’s revised responses and objections to the subpoenas. While Yasemin is stillreviewing those responses, itis apparent that she will be required to move to compel the production of documents requested in those subpoenas. And, once that issue has been resolved, Yasemin intends to proceed with their depositions. Re-depositions of the individual defendants: On October 27, 2022, this Court indicated that Yasemin and Zeynep would be permitted to re-depose the individual defendants “to the extent defendants have produced documents after witnesses have been deposed.” As soon as Defendants have produced the documents set forth above, Yasemin and Zeynep intend to pursue expeditiously these limited re-depositions. Deposition of Sadan Gurbuzturk: On September 17, 2022, Yasemin noticed the deposition of Ms. Gurbuzturk (i.e., the Company’s bookkeeper) for October 14, 2022. Defendants declined to comply. Instead, on September 27, 2022, Defendants stated that “[w]ith respect to Sadan Gurbuzturk, an employee of the Company Defendants, pursuant to CPLR 3106(d), Gonca Tekiner Chelsea, President of Bremen House, Inc., will be produced in place of Ms. Gurbuzturk.” Defendants failed to provide any justification for this substitution. At the deposition of Gonca Chelsea conducted on October 12, 2022, she testified that she “[didn’t] know” that “she’s here” for Sadan, and that nobody ever told as much. Moreover, Ms. Chelsea testified that “accounting stuff” was not her “area of expertise” – and, when Ms. Chelsea was asked if she was familiar with the bookkeeping of the Company Defendants, she testified: “I am familiar with what I need to do my job but I’m not the bookkeeper so this would be a question more for accounting or bookkeeping.” She identified Ms. Gurbuzturk as the bookkeeper who was familiar with the books and records of the Company Defendants, who used QuickBooks to keep the accounting (a program Ms. Chelsea testified she did not use), and to whom she would turn for documents printed off QuickBooks. Further, Ms. Chelsea testified that Ms. Gurbuzturk “tracks bills” and “tracks rents” for the Company Defendants, and provides information to the Company Defendants’ accountants to prepare their financial statements. As such, at the conclusion of Ms. Chelsea’s deposition, Yasemin reserved all of her rights – including, but not limited to, seeking Ms. Gurbuzturk’s deposition. On October 20, 2022, Yasemin wrote to Defendants demanding that Defendants produce Ms. Gurbuzturk for her deposition, and asked for three potential dates for that deposition to take place in November 2022. Defendants failed to respond, and have continued to ignore Yasemin’s multiple follow-ups regarding this issue. Deposition of Paul Schwartzman: On August 17, 2022, this Court denied Defendants’ motion to quash Yasemin’s subpoena to Mr. Schwartzman. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 681.) The next day, Yasemin wrote to Mr. Schwartzman, enclosing this Court’s order and requesting that he produce any non-corporate documents in his possession in response to the subpoena and advise as to his availability for a deposition in September. While Mr. Schwartzman appeared to be cooperative for a brief period of time, he has now become completely unresponsive. And, as set 3 FH11169315.1 forth in Yasemin’s reply brief in further support of her order to show cause for a special discovery master, due to Defendants’ treatment of Paul Schwartzman, he fears retribution if deposed. In light of Mr. Schwartzman’s non-responsiveness, Yasemin must now move to compel Mr. Schwartzman to respond to the subpoena. It appears that Defendants’ strategy is to “run out the clock” on discovery, in order to avoid their Court-ordered discovery obligations. In light of the foregoing, and the anticipated time it will take to obtain Defendants’ compliance, Yasemin respectfully proposes the following updated discovery schedule for the Court’s consideration: The deadline to complete fact discovery shall be February 14, 2023; The deadline for CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosure shall be February 28, 2023; The end date for all discovery shall be March 21, 2023; The deadline to file the note of issue shall be March 22, 2023; and The deadline for filing dispositive motions shall be April 12, 2023. We thank the Court for its consideration of this application.1 Respectfully submitted, Scott W. Parker 1 Yesterday evening, Yasemin advised both the Court and Defendants’ counsel of her intent to submit this request, and sought Defendants’ consent to the request. 4 FH11169315.1