Preview
Bryan T. Mohler
Partner
Direct Tel: 212-326-0466
bmohler@pryorcashman.com
December 16, 2022
VIA NYSCEF
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Commercial Division
60 Centre Street, Courtroom 208
New York, New York 10007
Re: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. et al., Index No. 657193/2020
Dear Justice Cohen:
We are counsel to Defendants, and we write in opposition to Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner’s
December 15, 2022 letter application seeking an Order setting revised discovery deadlines. As
discussed with Ms. Klinger during the parties’ December 5, 2022 Rule 14 conference, and further
explained below, Plaintiffs repeated claims of discovery failures are contrivances of Plaintiffs’
own creation. Indeed, nearly every paragraph of Yasemin’s letter ends with an admission that
Plaintiffs have either been dilatory or intentionally refrained from pursuing discovery to which
they purport to be entitled. It is time for discovery to close and the parties proceed to the merits.
Privileged Documents. Pursuant to the Court’s order resolving Motion Sequence No. 22,
Defendants re-reviewed approximately 10,000 documents originally withheld as privileged, de-
designating and producing 7,987 documents in rolling productions completed in mid-October.
Over a month later, on November 22, 2022, Yasemin requested a Rule 14 conference concerning
this issue, accusing Defendants of “inexplicably” continuing to withhold 1,069 documents as
privileged. During the December 5 conference, Ms. Klinger directed counsel for Yasemin to
specifically identify any logged documents on Defendants’ Amended Privilege Log she contends
in good faith are not privileged. Yasemin then waited another week, until three days ago, to
provide a list of 898 documents (of the total 1,069 on the log) as supposedly needing to be re-re-
reviewed. Yasemin fails to provide any meaningful explanation for her assertions that, for
example, over a hundred documents are not privileged simply because the communications were
“with Norton Rose”—Defendants’ former litigation attorneys. It is apparent that Yasemin is
strategically seeking to keep this (non)-issue alive as a pretext to support her dilatory objectives.
Mental Health Records. On November 10, 2022, Defendants produced more than 250
pages of medical records, including records from three of the five medical providers identified by
Plaintiffs. During contemporaneous meet and confers between counsel, Defendants explained that
the records from the other two institutions long predate any time periods during which Defendants’
competence and ability to run the company are alleged to be at issue in the complaint (as well as
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
December 16, 2022
Page 2
outside any relevant statute of limitations). During the December 5 conference, Ms. Klinger stated
that Plaintiff has not yet addressed Defendants’ arguments concerning medical records outside of
relevant time periods, and directed Yasemin to advance any such arguments by motion. Now
nearly two weeks later, she has not done so. Her deliberate inaction cannot justify an extension of
the discovery schedule.
Santander Bank Statements. While Yasemin complains that non-party Santander Bank’s
production of documents remains incomplete, she again omits key chronological details. Yasemin
waited until August 8, 2022, two months before the end of fact discovery, to serve the Santander
subpoena. Then, after Santander produced several thousand pages of documents on November 8,
Yasemin waited a month, until December 5, to write to Santander concerning alleged
“deficiencies” in the production. Again, Yasemin’s failure to diligently pursue discovery is not a
basis for a discovery extension.
Subpoenas to Allen Beck and Phil Michaels. Messrs. Beck and Michaels have not, in
fact, served amended responses and objections to their most recent subpoenas.1 The subpoenas,
served in September 2022 and to which Beck and Michaels responded to October 27, 2022, are
the most recent iterations of Yasemin’s numerous prior subpoenas on the deponents’ businesses,
the first of which were served in May and June 2021, respectively.2 It appears that this portion of
Plaintiffs’ letter was drafted in advance of receipt of amended responses and not edited out of the
final draft, but it belies the utter frivolity of their position: before even laying eyes upon the
amended responses, Plaintiffs have deemed them insufficient and demand additional time to make
motions about them. It is now obvious what will happen when Beck and Michaels actually respond
– no response will be good enough.
“Outstanding” Depositions. Plaintiffs have repeatedly scheduled depositions only to
cancel them without rescheduling. Most recently, John Stewart of Marcus Millichap, Bremen
House’s broker, was scheduled to sit for his deposition on November 15, 2022, only for Yasemin
to cancel it the day before (the third such time Yasemin’s counsel has cancelled Mr. Stewart’s
deposition). Mr. Stewart’s counsel reached out as recently as December 6 to inquire about another
date, but Plaintiffs have yet to respond. This is one example among many. Similarly, Yasemin’s
failure to secure the cooperation of Mr. Schwartzman, a non-party out of Defendants’ control, is
an issue of Yasemin’s own making. While she claims she must now move to compel his
1
Due to the voluminous nature of the documents demanded of Beck (41 categories) and Michaels (76 categories) and
the fact that prior counsel originallyresponded to these subpoenas, Defendants are working with Norton Rose
Fulbright to confirm the scope of the prior productions.
2
Despite having been served Beck and Michaels’ original (identical) responses and objections more than 18 months
prior – all of which were repeated in the October 27 version – Yasemin claims now that these responses and objections
are improper. Notably, Beck and Michaels previously produced all documents responsive to the earlier subpoenas,
and thus Yasemin cannot credibly claim she is prejudiced.
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
December 16, 2022
Page 3
compliance, Yasemin could have made that motion any time since August, yet she elected not to
do so. Yasemin’s effort to, once again, blame others for her own tactical inaction cannot justify
an extension of the discovery schedule.
* * *
It is Plaintiffs – not Defendants – who have tried to run out the clock. Their transparent
strategy to drag out discovery and avoid substantive determinations of their claims should be
rejected. Defendants respectfully request that Yasemin’s proposed extensions be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Bryan T. Mohler
cc: Counsel of Record (via email)
Preview
Bryan T. Mohler Partner Direct Tel: 212-326-0466 bmohler@pryorcashman.com December 16, 2022 VIA NYSCEF Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. Supreme Court of the State of New York Commercial Division 60 Centre Street, Courtroom 208 New York, New York 10007 Re: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. et al., Index No. 657193/2020 Dear Justice Cohen: We are counsel to Defendants, and we write in opposition to Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner’s December 15, 2022 letter application seeking an Order setting revised discovery deadlines. As discussed with Ms. Klinger during the parties’ December 5, 2022 Rule 14 conference, and further explained below, Plaintiffs repeated claims of discovery failures are contrivances of Plaintiffs’ own creation. Indeed, nearly every paragraph of Yasemin’s letter ends with an admission that Plaintiffs have either been dilatory or intentionally refrained from pursuing discovery to which they purport to be entitled. It is time for discovery to close and the parties proceed to the merits. Privileged Documents. Pursuant to the Court’s order resolving Motion Sequence No. 22, Defendants re-reviewed approximately 10,000 documents originally withheld as privileged, de- designating and producing 7,987 documents in rolling productions completed in mid-October. Over a month later, on November 22, 2022, Yasemin requested a Rule 14 conference concerning this issue, accusing Defendants of “inexplicably” continuing to withhold 1,069 documents as privileged. During the December 5 conference, Ms. Klinger directed counsel for Yasemin to specifically identify any logged documents on Defendants’ Amended Privilege Log she contends in good faith are not privileged. Yasemin then waited another week, until three days ago, to provide a list of 898 documents (of the total 1,069 on the log) as supposedly needing to be re-re- reviewed. Yasemin fails to provide any meaningful explanation for her assertions that, for example, over a hundred documents are not privileged simply because the communications were “with Norton Rose”—Defendants’ former litigation attorneys. It is apparent that Yasemin is strategically seeking to keep this (non)-issue alive as a pretext to support her dilatory objectives. Mental Health Records. On November 10, 2022, Defendants produced more than 250 pages of medical records, including records from three of the five medical providers identified by Plaintiffs. During contemporaneous meet and confers between counsel, Defendants explained that the records from the other two institutions long predate any time periods during which Defendants’ competence and ability to run the company are alleged to be at issue in the complaint (as well as Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. December 16, 2022 Page 2 outside any relevant statute of limitations). During the December 5 conference, Ms. Klinger stated that Plaintiff has not yet addressed Defendants’ arguments concerning medical records outside of relevant time periods, and directed Yasemin to advance any such arguments by motion. Now nearly two weeks later, she has not done so. Her deliberate inaction cannot justify an extension of the discovery schedule. Santander Bank Statements. While Yasemin complains that non-party Santander Bank’s production of documents remains incomplete, she again omits key chronological details. Yasemin waited until August 8, 2022, two months before the end of fact discovery, to serve the Santander subpoena. Then, after Santander produced several thousand pages of documents on November 8, Yasemin waited a month, until December 5, to write to Santander concerning alleged “deficiencies” in the production. Again, Yasemin’s failure to diligently pursue discovery is not a basis for a discovery extension. Subpoenas to Allen Beck and Phil Michaels. Messrs. Beck and Michaels have not, in fact, served amended responses and objections to their most recent subpoenas.1 The subpoenas, served in September 2022 and to which Beck and Michaels responded to October 27, 2022, are the most recent iterations of Yasemin’s numerous prior subpoenas on the deponents’ businesses, the first of which were served in May and June 2021, respectively.2 It appears that this portion of Plaintiffs’ letter was drafted in advance of receipt of amended responses and not edited out of the final draft, but it belies the utter frivolity of their position: before even laying eyes upon the amended responses, Plaintiffs have deemed them insufficient and demand additional time to make motions about them. It is now obvious what will happen when Beck and Michaels actually respond – no response will be good enough. “Outstanding” Depositions. Plaintiffs have repeatedly scheduled depositions only to cancel them without rescheduling. Most recently, John Stewart of Marcus Millichap, Bremen House’s broker, was scheduled to sit for his deposition on November 15, 2022, only for Yasemin to cancel it the day before (the third such time Yasemin’s counsel has cancelled Mr. Stewart’s deposition). Mr. Stewart’s counsel reached out as recently as December 6 to inquire about another date, but Plaintiffs have yet to respond. This is one example among many. Similarly, Yasemin’s failure to secure the cooperation of Mr. Schwartzman, a non-party out of Defendants’ control, is an issue of Yasemin’s own making. While she claims she must now move to compel his 1 Due to the voluminous nature of the documents demanded of Beck (41 categories) and Michaels (76 categories) and the fact that prior counsel originallyresponded to these subpoenas, Defendants are working with Norton Rose Fulbright to confirm the scope of the prior productions. 2 Despite having been served Beck and Michaels’ original (identical) responses and objections more than 18 months prior – all of which were repeated in the October 27 version – Yasemin claims now that these responses and objections are improper. Notably, Beck and Michaels previously produced all documents responsive to the earlier subpoenas, and thus Yasemin cannot credibly claim she is prejudiced. Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. December 16, 2022 Page 3 compliance, Yasemin could have made that motion any time since August, yet she elected not to do so. Yasemin’s effort to, once again, blame others for her own tactical inaction cannot justify an extension of the discovery schedule. * * * It is Plaintiffs – not Defendants – who have tried to run out the clock. Their transparent strategy to drag out discovery and avoid substantive determinations of their claims should be rejected. Defendants respectfully request that Yasemin’s proposed extensions be denied. Respectfully submitted, Bryan T. Mohler cc: Counsel of Record (via email)