Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
EXHIBIT 7
Defendants’ Responses and Objections to
Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COMMERCIAL DIVISION, COUNTY OF NEW YORK
YASEMIN TEKINER,
in her individual capacity, as a
beneficiary and a Trustee of The INDEX NO. 657193/2020
Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants
Trust and derivatively as a holder of RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
equitable interests in a shareholder or THIRD REQUEST FOR
a member of the Company PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendants,,
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,,
Defendant.
Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Defendants
BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., (collectively the “Companies”
or “Company Defendants”), BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK
(collectively, the “Individual Defendants” and together with the Company Defendants, the
“Defendants”)1, by and through their undersigned counsel, respond as follows to Plaintiff’s Third
Set of Requests for Production of Documents, dated September 15, 2021 (the “Requests” and
each, a “Request”).
1
The remaining defendants in the case caption were dismissed.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
Defendants state the following for its objections to the definitions and instructions in the
Requests (“Objections to Definitions and Instructions”):
1. Defendants object to the Definitions and Instructions in these Requests for all of
the same reasons previously stated in Defendants’ written objections and responses to Plaintiff’s
First and Second Requests for Production of Documents.
2. Defendants object to the Requests, including the Definitions and Instructions set
forth therein, to the extent that they seek to impose burdens or obligations beyond what is required
by the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), the Commercial Division Rules, the Part Rules, or
any other applicable law, rule or Court order.
3. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they are unduly burdensome in
that they seek documents or information that requires extensive and unreasonable investigative
work on the part of the Defendants.
4. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is
not “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense” of the action.
5. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require the
production of documents that are not within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
6. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of
documents or information that is already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control; that is
equally available to Plaintiff through public sources or records; or that may be obtained from
another source that is more convenient or less burdensome or less expensive.
7. Defendants object to the production of any documents absent the execution of an
appropriate confidentiality stipulation and order.
-2-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
8. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek the production of
privileged matter, including, without limitation, documents, communications and information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other
applicable privilege. The inadvertent production of any privileged matter is not intended to
relinquish any privilege and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege.
9. By objecting and/or responding to the Requests, Defendants do not in any way
waive or intend to waive, but rather intend to preserve and are hereby preserving:
(a) All objections to the competency, relevance, materiality, and admissibility
of these Requests, the responses, and their subject matter;
(b) All objections as to the vagueness, ambiguity, or other infirmity in the form
of the Requests and any objections based on the undue burden imposed by the
Requests;
(c) All rights to object on any ground to the use of the responses, or their subject
matter, at any subsequent proceeding, including the trial of this matter, or in any
other action;
(d) All rights to object on any ground to any further requests or any other
discovery requests involving or relating to the subject matter of the Requests;
(e) The right at any time to revise, modify, clarify, and/or supplement any of
the responses to the Requests at any time; and
(f) Any and all privileges and/or rights under the applicable Rules of this Court,
or under the common law, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client, work
product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation privileges; and
(g) Any and all objections previously asserted.
-3-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
10. Defendants’ agreement in this response to produce documents or make documents
available for inspection in response to the Requests is not intended to constitute a representation
or admission that any such documents exist, but rather constitutes an undertaking by Defendants
to produce or make available documents that exist, that are within the Defendants’ possession,
custody, or control, that can be found by means of a reasonable search of their files, that are not
subject to any applicable privilege or immunity from disclosure (including, without limitation, the
attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege), and that are
otherwise within the scope of appropriate discovery under CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial
Division Rules.
11. Defendants object to the definition of “Companies” in paragraph 1 of the Requests
as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “independent
contractors, agents, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors,
[and] attorneys” of the Companies, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on their
behalf.” Defendants further object to the definition of “Companies” in paragraph 1 because it
includes entities that are no longer defendants in the lawsuit as a result of the Court’s Order on
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss of August 4, 2021. For purposes of this response, Defendants
define “Companies” as Bremen House, Inc. and German News Company, Inc.
12. Defendants object to the definition of “Defendants” in paragraph 2 of the Requests
as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “employees,
independent contractors, agents, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors,
successors, [and] attorneys” of Defendants, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on
their behalf.” Defendants further object to the definition of “Companies” in paragraph 1 because
it includes entities that are no longer defendants in the lawsuit as a result of the Court’s Order on
-4-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss of August 4, 2021. For purposes of this response, Defendants
define “Defendants” as the named Individual Defendants in this action and companies, Bremen
House, Inc. and German News Company, Inc.
13. Defendants object to the definition of the individual Plaintiff, “Yasemin,” in
paragraph 3 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because
it includes in that definition undefined “partners, employees, agents, attorneys, and any persons
acting or purporting to act on her behalf” even though Defendants have no insight into who all of
these individuals or entities are or could be. For purposes of this response, Defendants define
“Yasemin” as the individual Plaintiff in this action only.
14. Defendants object to the definition of “you” and “your” in paragraph 4 of the
Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it incorporates the
same objectionable definition of “Defendants”, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act
on behalf of any such entity or entities.” For purposes of this response, Defendants define “you”
as the named Individual Defendants in this action and companies, Bremen House, Inc. and German
News Company, Inc.
15. Defendants object to the definition of “communication” in paragraph 7 of the
Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes oral
communications that are not recorded in a written or electronic medium.
16. Defendants object to the definition of “document” in paragraph 8 of the Requests
to the extent that it exceeds the scope of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules.
Defendants also object to the definition as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly
burdensome to the extent it seeks oral communications that are not recorded in a written or
electronic medium.
-5-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
17. Defendants object to Instructions 1, 4, 6 and 7 of the Requests to the extent they
seek to impose obligations on Defendants beyond the requirements of CPLR Article 31 and the
Commercial Division Rules.
18. Defendants object to Instructions 2 and 9 as unduly burdensome and unreasonable
in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information because they seek to impose
unreasonable requirements on the form of Defendants’ production of electronically stored
information (“ESI”). Defendants have negotiated an appropriate ESI protocol to govern the
parties’ document productions.
19. Defendants object to Instruction 10 of the Requests because it defines the relevant
time period for all of the Requests as “January 1, 2011 to the present,” which period is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain
the information. For purposes of this response, unless otherwise specified in a specific response
below, Defendants define the Relevant Period as January 1, 2015 to the present.
-6-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
Subject to and without waiver of the Objections to Definitions and Instructions, each of
which is hereby incorporated in the responses to each individual Request, Defendants respond as
follows:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
All documents concerning any indemnification by or request for indemnification from one
or more of the Companies for any fees, costs, or other amounts relating to the above-captioned
action.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of
documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege,
and common interest privilege.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, by the close of discovery, Defendants will
produce non-privileged documents concerning the indemnification of the Individual Defendants,
to the extent any documents exist and can be located upon a reasonable search of their files.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
All documents concerning Defendants’ preservation, retention, destruction, or deletion of
documents.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of
documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege,
and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about
discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and
-7-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
disproportionate to the needs of the case. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad,
vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because itasks for all documents responsive to the
subject matter of the request since 2011, which information is not “material and necessary” to the
claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain
the information. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents
already within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which information has already been
provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents responsive to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
All documents concerning Defendants’ document retention policies.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of
Request No. 2. Defendants object to this Request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of documents
and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and
common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it asks for all documents since 2011, which information is not “material and
necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense
necessary to obtain the information.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, by the close of discovery, the Company
Defendants will produce any document retention policies in place from December 2019 to the
present, to the extent documents exist and can be located upon a reasonable search of their files.
-8-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
All documents concerning any instruction to Defendants to retain, preserve, or not destroy
documents.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it is duplicative of Request
No. 2. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of documents
and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and
common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks
documents already within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which information has already
been provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad and
unduly burdensome because it asks for all documents since 2011, which information is not
“material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort
and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this request as
seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly
burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents
responsive to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
All documents concerning the risk or possibility of litigation concerning Defendants or
Plaintiff.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of
-9-
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege,
and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about
discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and
disproportionate to the needs of the case. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent
that itseeks documents already within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, or known to
Plaintiff. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because
it asks for all documents since 2011 whether or not related to the above-captioned case, which
information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in
light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents
responsive to this Request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Documents sufficient to show all phones and other electronic devices utilized by Berrin
Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already
provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require
Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of
course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily
produced in a summary format as previously provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and is therefore unduly
burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents
and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and
common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about
- 10 -
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and
disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided
information sufficient to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and if
Plaintiff’s counsel had any follow-up questions they should invite a meet and confer.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Documents sufficient to show the current location of all phones and other electronic devices
utilized by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015
to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already
provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require
Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of
course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily
produced in a summary format as previously provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and is therefore unduly
burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents
and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and
common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about
discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and
disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents
responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient
- 11 -
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
to identify the location of phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and if Plaintiff’s counsel
had any follow-up questions they should invite a meet and confer.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
All documents concerning the loss, destruction, sale, or disposition of all phones and other
electronic devices utilized by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek
from January 1, 2015 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already
provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require
Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of
course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily
produced in a summary format as previously provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and is therefore unduly
burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents
and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and
common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about
discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and
disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for
documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided
information sufficient to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and if
Plaintiff’s counsel had any follow-up questions they should invite a meet and confer.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
All documents concerning any icloud account utilized or accessed by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca
Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present.
- 12 -
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as seeking “all” documents
concerning “any” accounts “utilized or accessed,” which is overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already sought by Plaintiff’s
Counsel, and to which Defendants have agreed to respond. Defendants further object to the Request
because itseeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are
unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which
information is more easily produced in a summary format, and is therefore unduly burdensome.
Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and
communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common
interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery,
without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate
to the needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents
responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient
to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and have represented to Plaintiff’s
counsel that they are confirming whether unique text messages exist in backup locations for each
such Individual Defendant that are reasonably accessible.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
All documents concerning any itunes account utilized or accessed by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca
Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present.
- 13 -
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as duplicative of Request No. 9
herein. Defendants object to this Request as seeking “all” documents concerning “any” accounts
“utilized or accessed,” which is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants object to this
Request because it seeks information already sought by Plaintiff’s Counsel, and to which
Defendants have agreed to respond. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to
require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a
matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more
easily produced in a summary format, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further
object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected
by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege.
Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to
do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the
case.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents
responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient
to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and have represented to Plaintiff’s
counsel that they are confirming whether unique text messages exist in backup locations for each
such Individual Defendant that are reasonably accessible.
- 14 -
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
All documents concerning any cloud or other information storage system or service utilized
or accessed by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1,
2015 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as duplicative of Request Nos. 9
and 10 herein. Defendants object to this Request as seeking “all” documents concerning “any”
“system or service” “utilized or accessed,” which is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and
ambiguous. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already sought by
Plaintiff’s Counsel, and to which Defendants have agreed to respond. Defendants further object to
the Request because it seeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents
that are unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control,
and which information is more easily produced in a summary format, and is therefore unduly
burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents
and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and
common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about
discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and
disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents
responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient
to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and have represented to Plaintiff’s
counsel that they are confirming whether unique text messages exist in backup locations for each
such Individual Defendant that are reasonably accessible.
- 15 -
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
All documents concerning any media or other object capable of storing information utilized
or accessed by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1,
2015 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this request to the extent itis duplicative of
Request Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 herein. Defendants object to this Request as seeking “all”
documents concerning “any media or other object” “utilized or accessed,” which is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks
information already sought by Plaintiff’s Counsel, and to which Defendants have either responded
or agreed to respond. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require
Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of
course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily
produced in a summary format, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further object to
this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the
attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants
further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and
is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents
responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient
to identify the phones utilized for work by the Individual Defendants, and have represented to
Plaintiff’s counsel that they are confirming whether unique text messages exist in backup locations
for each such Individual Defendant that are reasonably accessible.
- 16 -
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
All documents concerning Defendants’ defenses and Counterclaims.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents
within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, or documents already produced by Defendants.
Defendants object to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “all”
documents “concerning” Defendants’ defenses and counterclaims, without limitation, instead of
documents upon which Defendants will rely to prove their claims and defenses for those claims and
defenses for which Defendants bear the burden of proof. Defendants further object to this Request
to the extent it is duplicative of prior Requests, including Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of
Documents No. 87, and refer Plaintiff to their response to that request. Defendants further object to
this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-
product privilege, or any other applicable privilege.
Subject to and without waiving their objections, by the close of discovery, Defendants will
produce non-privileged documents on which they intend to rely to prove the claims and defenses
for which they bear the burden of proof, to the extent documents exist and can be located upon a
reasonable search of their files.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
All documents concerning the Yasemin Trust Agreement, Certificates of Incorporation for
the Companies, Corporate Bylaws of the Companies, and all other relevant corporate agreements
and amendments.
- 17 -
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as
though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents
already within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, or documents that are publicly available
on the court’s docket. Defendants further object to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable
privilege. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly
burdensome because it asks for “all documents concerning” the named agreements, certifi
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 EXHIBIT 7 Defendants’ Responses and Objections to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL DIVISION, COUNTY OF NEW YORK YASEMIN TEKINER, in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The INDEX NO. 657193/2020 Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S equitable interests in a shareholder or THIRD REQUEST FOR a member of the Company PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants,, 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,, Defendant. Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, Defendants BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., (collectively the “Companies” or “Company Defendants”), BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK (collectively, the “Individual Defendants” and together with the Company Defendants, the “Defendants”)1, by and through their undersigned counsel, respond as follows to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents, dated September 15, 2021 (the “Requests” and each, a “Request”). 1 The remaining defendants in the case caption were dismissed. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS Defendants state the following for its objections to the definitions and instructions in the Requests (“Objections to Definitions and Instructions”): 1. Defendants object to the Definitions and Instructions in these Requests for all of the same reasons previously stated in Defendants’ written objections and responses to Plaintiff’s First and Second Requests for Production of Documents. 2. Defendants object to the Requests, including the Definitions and Instructions set forth therein, to the extent that they seek to impose burdens or obligations beyond what is required by the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), the Commercial Division Rules, the Part Rules, or any other applicable law, rule or Court order. 3. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they are unduly burdensome in that they seek documents or information that requires extensive and unreasonable investigative work on the part of the Defendants. 4. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is not “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense” of the action. 5. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they purport to require the production of documents that are not within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control. 6. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent that they seek the disclosure of documents or information that is already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control; that is equally available to Plaintiff through public sources or records; or that may be obtained from another source that is more convenient or less burdensome or less expensive. 7. Defendants object to the production of any documents absent the execution of an appropriate confidentiality stipulation and order. -2- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 8. Defendants object to the Requests to the extent they seek the production of privileged matter, including, without limitation, documents, communications and information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. The inadvertent production of any privileged matter is not intended to relinquish any privilege and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any applicable privilege. 9. By objecting and/or responding to the Requests, Defendants do not in any way waive or intend to waive, but rather intend to preserve and are hereby preserving: (a) All objections to the competency, relevance, materiality, and admissibility of these Requests, the responses, and their subject matter; (b) All objections as to the vagueness, ambiguity, or other infirmity in the form of the Requests and any objections based on the undue burden imposed by the Requests; (c) All rights to object on any ground to the use of the responses, or their subject matter, at any subsequent proceeding, including the trial of this matter, or in any other action; (d) All rights to object on any ground to any further requests or any other discovery requests involving or relating to the subject matter of the Requests; (e) The right at any time to revise, modify, clarify, and/or supplement any of the responses to the Requests at any time; and (f) Any and all privileges and/or rights under the applicable Rules of this Court, or under the common law, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client, work product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation privileges; and (g) Any and all objections previously asserted. -3- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 10. Defendants’ agreement in this response to produce documents or make documents available for inspection in response to the Requests is not intended to constitute a representation or admission that any such documents exist, but rather constitutes an undertaking by Defendants to produce or make available documents that exist, that are within the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, that can be found by means of a reasonable search of their files, that are not subject to any applicable privilege or immunity from disclosure (including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege), and that are otherwise within the scope of appropriate discovery under CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. 11. Defendants object to the definition of “Companies” in paragraph 1 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “independent contractors, agents, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, [and] attorneys” of the Companies, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf.” Defendants further object to the definition of “Companies” in paragraph 1 because it includes entities that are no longer defendants in the lawsuit as a result of the Court’s Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss of August 4, 2021. For purposes of this response, Defendants define “Companies” as Bremen House, Inc. and German News Company, Inc. 12. Defendants object to the definition of “Defendants” in paragraph 2 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “employees, independent contractors, agents, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, [and] attorneys” of Defendants, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf.” Defendants further object to the definition of “Companies” in paragraph 1 because it includes entities that are no longer defendants in the lawsuit as a result of the Court’s Order on -4- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss of August 4, 2021. For purposes of this response, Defendants define “Defendants” as the named Individual Defendants in this action and companies, Bremen House, Inc. and German News Company, Inc. 13. Defendants object to the definition of the individual Plaintiff, “Yasemin,” in paragraph 3 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes in that definition undefined “partners, employees, agents, attorneys, and any persons acting or purporting to act on her behalf” even though Defendants have no insight into who all of these individuals or entities are or could be. For purposes of this response, Defendants define “Yasemin” as the individual Plaintiff in this action only. 14. Defendants object to the definition of “you” and “your” in paragraph 4 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it incorporates the same objectionable definition of “Defendants”, as well as “any persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of any such entity or entities.” For purposes of this response, Defendants define “you” as the named Individual Defendants in this action and companies, Bremen House, Inc. and German News Company, Inc. 15. Defendants object to the definition of “communication” in paragraph 7 of the Requests as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes oral communications that are not recorded in a written or electronic medium. 16. Defendants object to the definition of “document” in paragraph 8 of the Requests to the extent that it exceeds the scope of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. Defendants also object to the definition as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks oral communications that are not recorded in a written or electronic medium. -5- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 17. Defendants object to Instructions 1, 4, 6 and 7 of the Requests to the extent they seek to impose obligations on Defendants beyond the requirements of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. 18. Defendants object to Instructions 2 and 9 as unduly burdensome and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information because they seek to impose unreasonable requirements on the form of Defendants’ production of electronically stored information (“ESI”). Defendants have negotiated an appropriate ESI protocol to govern the parties’ document productions. 19. Defendants object to Instruction 10 of the Requests because it defines the relevant time period for all of the Requests as “January 1, 2011 to the present,” which period is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. For purposes of this response, unless otherwise specified in a specific response below, Defendants define the Relevant Period as January 1, 2015 to the present. -6- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS Subject to and without waiver of the Objections to Definitions and Instructions, each of which is hereby incorporated in the responses to each individual Request, Defendants respond as follows: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: All documents concerning any indemnification by or request for indemnification from one or more of the Companies for any fees, costs, or other amounts relating to the above-captioned action. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Subject to and without waiving their objections, by the close of discovery, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents concerning the indemnification of the Individual Defendants, to the extent any documents exist and can be located upon a reasonable search of their files. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: All documents concerning Defendants’ preservation, retention, destruction, or deletion of documents. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and -7- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 disproportionate to the needs of the case. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because itasks for all documents responsive to the subject matter of the request since 2011, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents already within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which information has already been provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All documents concerning Defendants’ document retention policies. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 2. Defendants object to this Request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it asks for all documents since 2011, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Subject to and without waiving their objections, by the close of discovery, the Company Defendants will produce any document retention policies in place from December 2019 to the present, to the extent documents exist and can be located upon a reasonable search of their files. -8- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents concerning any instruction to Defendants to retain, preserve, or not destroy documents. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it is duplicative of Request No. 2. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents already within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which information has already been provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it asks for all documents since 2011, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All documents concerning the risk or possibility of litigation concerning Defendants or Plaintiff. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of -9- FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent that itseeks documents already within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, or known to Plaintiff. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it asks for all documents since 2011 whether or not related to the above-captioned case, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense necessary to obtain the information. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Documents sufficient to show all phones and other electronic devices utilized by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily produced in a summary format as previously provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about - 10 - FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and if Plaintiff’s counsel had any follow-up questions they should invite a meet and confer. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Documents sufficient to show the current location of all phones and other electronic devices utilized by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily produced in a summary format as previously provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient - 11 - FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 to identify the location of phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and if Plaintiff’s counsel had any follow-up questions they should invite a meet and confer. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All documents concerning the loss, destruction, sale, or disposition of all phones and other electronic devices utilized by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily produced in a summary format as previously provided to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and if Plaintiff’s counsel had any follow-up questions they should invite a meet and confer. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All documents concerning any icloud account utilized or accessed by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present. - 12 - FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as seeking “all” documents concerning “any” accounts “utilized or accessed,” which is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already sought by Plaintiff’s Counsel, and to which Defendants have agreed to respond. Defendants further object to the Request because itseeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily produced in a summary format, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and have represented to Plaintiff’s counsel that they are confirming whether unique text messages exist in backup locations for each such Individual Defendant that are reasonably accessible. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: All documents concerning any itunes account utilized or accessed by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present. - 13 - FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as duplicative of Request No. 9 herein. Defendants object to this Request as seeking “all” documents concerning “any” accounts “utilized or accessed,” which is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already sought by Plaintiff’s Counsel, and to which Defendants have agreed to respond. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily produced in a summary format, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and have represented to Plaintiff’s counsel that they are confirming whether unique text messages exist in backup locations for each such Individual Defendant that are reasonably accessible. - 14 - FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: All documents concerning any cloud or other information storage system or service utilized or accessed by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this Request as duplicative of Request Nos. 9 and 10 herein. Defendants object to this Request as seeking “all” documents concerning “any” “system or service” “utilized or accessed,” which is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already sought by Plaintiff’s Counsel, and to which Defendants have agreed to respond. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily produced in a summary format, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient to identify the phones utilized by the Individual Defendants, and have represented to Plaintiff’s counsel that they are confirming whether unique text messages exist in backup locations for each such Individual Defendant that are reasonably accessible. - 15 - FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All documents concerning any media or other object capable of storing information utilized or accessed by Berrin Tekiner, Gonca Tekiner, Zeynep Tekiner, or Billur Akipek from January 1, 2015 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this request to the extent itis duplicative of Request Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 herein. Defendants object to this Request as seeking “all” documents concerning “any media or other object” “utilized or accessed,” which is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. Defendants object to this Request because it seeks information already sought by Plaintiff’s Counsel, and to which Defendants have either responded or agreed to respond. Defendants further object to the Request because it seeks to require Defendants to produce information by locating documents that are unlikely to exist as a matter of course in the Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, and which information is more easily produced in a summary format, and is therefore unduly burdensome. Defendants further object to this Request because it seeks the disclosure of documents and communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and common interest privilege. Defendants further object to this request as seeking discovery about discovery, without any basis to do so, and is therefore overly broad, unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. Subject to and without waiving their objections, Defendants decline to search for documents responsive to this Request. Defendants state that they have already provided information sufficient to identify the phones utilized for work by the Individual Defendants, and have represented to Plaintiff’s counsel that they are confirming whether unique text messages exist in backup locations for each such Individual Defendant that are reasonably accessible. - 16 - FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: All documents concerning Defendants’ defenses and Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, or documents already produced by Defendants. Defendants object to this request as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “all” documents “concerning” Defendants’ defenses and counterclaims, without limitation, instead of documents upon which Defendants will rely to prove their claims and defenses for those claims and defenses for which Defendants bear the burden of proof. Defendants further object to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of prior Requests, including Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 87, and refer Plaintiff to their response to that request. Defendants further object to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work- product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Subject to and without waiving their objections, by the close of discovery, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents on which they intend to rely to prove the claims and defenses for which they bear the burden of proof, to the extent documents exist and can be located upon a reasonable search of their files. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All documents concerning the Yasemin Trust Agreement, Certificates of Incorporation for the Companies, Corporate Bylaws of the Companies, and all other relevant corporate agreements and amendments. - 17 - FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1038 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Defendants incorporate by reference their Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents already within Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, or documents that are publicly available on the court’s docket. Defendants further object to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. Defendants further object to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it asks for “all documents concerning” the named agreements, certifi