Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1052 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
EXHIBIT 21
November 31, 2022 Rule 14 Response Letter From Meghan Hill to Court
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1052 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Meghan E. Hill
Direct Tel: 212-326-0808
Direct Fax: 212-326-0806
MHill@PRYORCASHMAN.com
November 30, 2022
VIA NYSECF
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 represent Defendants in the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to Commercial Division
Rule 14 and Section VI.B of the Part 3 Individual Practices and Procedures, we write in response to
Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner’s November 22, 2022 letter requesting that the Court order non-parties
Phillip Michaels, Esq. of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP (“NRF”) and Allen M. Beck, CPA, MST of Beck
& Baumann, CPA, LLC (“B&B”) “to provide full responses under the applicable Rules” to certain
subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum served by Plaintiff (the “Michaels Subpoenas” and “Beck
Subpoena”).
As explained below, this dispute is a pretext manufactured by Yasemin to justify an extension
of the discovery schedule, and is completely without merit. In connection with wholly duplicative
subpoenas previously served, Messrs. Beck and Michaels long ago produced documents responsive to
the subpoenas, and there is no basis to grant Yasemin’s request.
2022 Beck Subpoena and Prior Beck Subpoenas
Mr. Beck and Denise Baumann are the co-owners of B&B, Defendants’ accountants since
approximately 2019. The Beck Subpoena propounded 31 deposition topics and 41 document demands
on Beck personally, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s service of two prior subpoenas seeking nearly identical
information.
In May 2021, Plaintiff served Denise Baumann with a subpoena for documents and testimony,
seeking documents responsive to the same 41 requests as the Beck Subpoena. On June 24, 2021,
Plaintiff issued an identical subpoena for documents and testimony directed to B&B. Ms. Baumann
and B&B, represented by Defendants’ counsel for the purposes of responding to the subpoenas, each
served responses and objections, including an objection that the subpoenas were overwhelmingly
duplicative of discovery requests already served on Defendants. Counsel for the parties met and
conferred and exchanged detailed correspondence regarding the 2021 subpoenas.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1052 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
November 30, 2022
Page 2
Defendants thereafter collected and reviewed documents from B&B’s records, including both
Beck and Ms. Baumann’s files, and produced those documents in connection with Defendants’
production of documents (using Defendants’ bates prefix). Defendants also produced thousands of
deduplicated emails to, from, or copying Mr. Beck or Ms. Baumann. After the documents had been
produced, Yasemin never moved to compel further production pursuant to the two subpoenas, or
sought to take the deposition of either Ms. Baumann or B&B.
In September 2022, Yasemin issued yet another subpoena for documents and testimony, this
time directed to Mr. Beck personally. On October 7, 2022, Defendants’ counsel agreed to accept
service of the Beck Subpoena on his behalf and to produce Mr. Beck for his deposition on the noticed
date of October 17, 2022, on the condition that he be granted until October 27, 2022 to serve formal
written objections. Plaintiff agreed, but subsequently cancelled Beck’s deposition. Mr. Beck served
his written objections and responses (“R&Os”) to the Beck Subpoena on October 27. Defendants’
counsel also notified Plaintiff that because thousands of responsive documents to had previously been
produced in response to the discovery Defendants demands served on Defendants and the previous
subpoenas to B&B and Bauman individually – and because the documents demanded in the Beck
Subpoena were identical to those previously demanded – no additional documents would be produced.
2022 Michaels Subpoena and Prior NRF Subpoena
Mr. Michaels is a partner at NRF, which has provided legal advice to for over a decade,
primarily in the trusts and estates context. Similarly to the Beck Subpoena, the Michaels Subpoena
propounded 47 deposition topics and 76 document demands on Mr. Michaels personally,
1
notwithstanding a prior subpoena on NRF seeking nearly identical information.
Specifically, in May 2021, Plaintiff served a subpoena for documents and testimony on NRF,
who at that time also represented Defendants in this litigation. Counsel met and conferred extensively
as to the scope of the NRF subpoena, which called for numerous documents that would otherwise be
protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. On November 16, 2021, the parties
reached a written agreement by which Plaintiff agreed to narrow the subpoena to communications with
third parties that were not presumptively privileged.
Counsel then collected documents from multiple NRF attorneys, including Mr. Michaels.
Those documents were reviewed and NRF produced documents responsive to the narrowed requests,
again in connection with Defendants’ productions and using Defendants’ bates prefix. Most recently,
in connection with the re-review of Defendants’ privilege log, Defendants produced thousands of
additional deduplicated emails to, from, or copying Mr. Michaels. Yasemin never moved to compel
further production pursuant to the NRF subpoena, or sought to take the deposition of Mr. Michaels or
any other attorney at NRF.
In September 2022, Yasemin issued yet another subpoena for documents and testimony, this
1
Yasemin’s original subpoena to NRF contained 3 additional requests that were excluded from the Michaels
Subpoena.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1052 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
November 30, 2022
Page 3
time directed to Mr. Michaels personally. On October 7, Defendants’ counsel accepted service on
behalf of Mr. Michaels on the same conditions as the Beck Subpoena. Plaintiff again agreed, but
subsequently cancelled Mr. Michaels’ deposition. Mr. Michaels served his written R&Os on October
27, and stated that, for the same reasons as with the Beck Subpoena, no additional documents would
be produced.
This Dispute
Plaintiff’s Rule 14 letter is a dispute manufactured in an attempt to re-trade her prior deal with
Defendants regarding the scope of the NRF subpoena while justifying an extension of the discovery
schedule. Plaintiff’s original subpoenas (requesting the same documents as the current subpoenas)
were served more than 18 months ago, and she has been in possession of the documents responsive to
those subpoenas for many months. Yet she waited until now – 30 days before the end of discovery –
to contest the productions2 and the written R&Os to the Beck and Michaels Subpoenas (which
incorporated verbatim the prior R&Os served by NRF).
Plaintiff first argues that the Beck and Michaels R&Os violate CPLR 3122 and Commercial
Division Rule 11-e, which require the grounds for objections to be “state[d] with reasonable
particularity.” Plaintiff does not explain the basis for her accusation, other than to vaguely describe the
R&Os as “improper.” The cases she cites are wholly inapposite.3 Second, she argues that objections
on the basis of duplication are per se inadequate. Yet duplicative discovery is not “material and
necessary” under CPLR 3101. See Spring 56 Realty, LLC v. Spring Condominium, No. 654149/2013,
2016 WL 6038440, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 14, 2016) (testimony of a nonparty that would be
“duplicative and derivative” was therefore “not material and necessary to the prosecution of the
action”); Blagrove v. Cox, 294 A.D.2d 526 (2d Dep’t 2002)(affirming an order denying a motion to
compel where “the medical records sought to be obtained . . . were duplicative of material provided
through prior authorizations”).
Yasemin cannot and has not established her right to additional documents from Messrs. Beck
or Michaels, as she cannot show that the documents she seeks are “material and necessary” to this
action. Yasemin’s request should be denied.
Very truly yours,
Meghan E. Hill
cc: Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)
2
Yasemin criticizes Defendants’ failure to state in the Beck and Michaels’ R&Os that “all documents responsive” to
particular requests had been produced, neglecting the fact that the documents were only produced subject to the
parties’ negotiated narrowing of the requests.
3
In re Driver, 117 A.D.2d 224 (1st Dept 1986) and In re Spiegelman, 116 A.D.2d 346 (1st Dept 1986) both concern
a motion to suspend an attorney and discuss the obligation of an attorney to investigate allegations of attorney
misconduct. Neither case references CPLR 3122 or Rule 11-e (or CPLR 3101, for that matter). Id.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1052 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 EXHIBIT 21 November 31, 2022 Rule 14 Response Letter From Meghan Hill to Court FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1052 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Meghan E. Hill Direct Tel: 212-326-0808 Direct Fax: 212-326-0806 MHill@PRYORCASHMAN.com November 30, 2022 VIA NYSECF 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 represent Defendants in the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to Commercial Division Rule 14 and Section VI.B of the Part 3 Individual Practices and Procedures, we write in response to Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner’s November 22, 2022 letter requesting that the Court order non-parties Phillip Michaels, Esq. of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP (“NRF”) and Allen M. Beck, CPA, MST of Beck & Baumann, CPA, LLC (“B&B”) “to provide full responses under the applicable Rules” to certain subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum served by Plaintiff (the “Michaels Subpoenas” and “Beck Subpoena”). As explained below, this dispute is a pretext manufactured by Yasemin to justify an extension of the discovery schedule, and is completely without merit. In connection with wholly duplicative subpoenas previously served, Messrs. Beck and Michaels long ago produced documents responsive to the subpoenas, and there is no basis to grant Yasemin’s request. 2022 Beck Subpoena and Prior Beck Subpoenas Mr. Beck and Denise Baumann are the co-owners of B&B, Defendants’ accountants since approximately 2019. The Beck Subpoena propounded 31 deposition topics and 41 document demands on Beck personally, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s service of two prior subpoenas seeking nearly identical information. In May 2021, Plaintiff served Denise Baumann with a subpoena for documents and testimony, seeking documents responsive to the same 41 requests as the Beck Subpoena. On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff issued an identical subpoena for documents and testimony directed to B&B. Ms. Baumann and B&B, represented by Defendants’ counsel for the purposes of responding to the subpoenas, each served responses and objections, including an objection that the subpoenas were overwhelmingly duplicative of discovery requests already served on Defendants. Counsel for the parties met and conferred and exchanged detailed correspondence regarding the 2021 subpoenas. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1052 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. November 30, 2022 Page 2 Defendants thereafter collected and reviewed documents from B&B’s records, including both Beck and Ms. Baumann’s files, and produced those documents in connection with Defendants’ production of documents (using Defendants’ bates prefix). Defendants also produced thousands of deduplicated emails to, from, or copying Mr. Beck or Ms. Baumann. After the documents had been produced, Yasemin never moved to compel further production pursuant to the two subpoenas, or sought to take the deposition of either Ms. Baumann or B&B. In September 2022, Yasemin issued yet another subpoena for documents and testimony, this time directed to Mr. Beck personally. On October 7, 2022, Defendants’ counsel agreed to accept service of the Beck Subpoena on his behalf and to produce Mr. Beck for his deposition on the noticed date of October 17, 2022, on the condition that he be granted until October 27, 2022 to serve formal written objections. Plaintiff agreed, but subsequently cancelled Beck’s deposition. Mr. Beck served his written objections and responses (“R&Os”) to the Beck Subpoena on October 27. Defendants’ counsel also notified Plaintiff that because thousands of responsive documents to had previously been produced in response to the discovery Defendants demands served on Defendants and the previous subpoenas to B&B and Bauman individually – and because the documents demanded in the Beck Subpoena were identical to those previously demanded – no additional documents would be produced. 2022 Michaels Subpoena and Prior NRF Subpoena Mr. Michaels is a partner at NRF, which has provided legal advice to for over a decade, primarily in the trusts and estates context. Similarly to the Beck Subpoena, the Michaels Subpoena propounded 47 deposition topics and 76 document demands on Mr. Michaels personally, 1 notwithstanding a prior subpoena on NRF seeking nearly identical information. Specifically, in May 2021, Plaintiff served a subpoena for documents and testimony on NRF, who at that time also represented Defendants in this litigation. Counsel met and conferred extensively as to the scope of the NRF subpoena, which called for numerous documents that would otherwise be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. On November 16, 2021, the parties reached a written agreement by which Plaintiff agreed to narrow the subpoena to communications with third parties that were not presumptively privileged. Counsel then collected documents from multiple NRF attorneys, including Mr. Michaels. Those documents were reviewed and NRF produced documents responsive to the narrowed requests, again in connection with Defendants’ productions and using Defendants’ bates prefix. Most recently, in connection with the re-review of Defendants’ privilege log, Defendants produced thousands of additional deduplicated emails to, from, or copying Mr. Michaels. Yasemin never moved to compel further production pursuant to the NRF subpoena, or sought to take the deposition of Mr. Michaels or any other attorney at NRF. In September 2022, Yasemin issued yet another subpoena for documents and testimony, this 1 Yasemin’s original subpoena to NRF contained 3 additional requests that were excluded from the Michaels Subpoena. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1052 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. November 30, 2022 Page 3 time directed to Mr. Michaels personally. On October 7, Defendants’ counsel accepted service on behalf of Mr. Michaels on the same conditions as the Beck Subpoena. Plaintiff again agreed, but subsequently cancelled Mr. Michaels’ deposition. Mr. Michaels served his written R&Os on October 27, and stated that, for the same reasons as with the Beck Subpoena, no additional documents would be produced. This Dispute Plaintiff’s Rule 14 letter is a dispute manufactured in an attempt to re-trade her prior deal with Defendants regarding the scope of the NRF subpoena while justifying an extension of the discovery schedule. Plaintiff’s original subpoenas (requesting the same documents as the current subpoenas) were served more than 18 months ago, and she has been in possession of the documents responsive to those subpoenas for many months. Yet she waited until now – 30 days before the end of discovery – to contest the productions2 and the written R&Os to the Beck and Michaels Subpoenas (which incorporated verbatim the prior R&Os served by NRF). Plaintiff first argues that the Beck and Michaels R&Os violate CPLR 3122 and Commercial Division Rule 11-e, which require the grounds for objections to be “state[d] with reasonable particularity.” Plaintiff does not explain the basis for her accusation, other than to vaguely describe the R&Os as “improper.” The cases she cites are wholly inapposite.3 Second, she argues that objections on the basis of duplication are per se inadequate. Yet duplicative discovery is not “material and necessary” under CPLR 3101. See Spring 56 Realty, LLC v. Spring Condominium, No. 654149/2013, 2016 WL 6038440, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 14, 2016) (testimony of a nonparty that would be “duplicative and derivative” was therefore “not material and necessary to the prosecution of the action”); Blagrove v. Cox, 294 A.D.2d 526 (2d Dep’t 2002)(affirming an order denying a motion to compel where “the medical records sought to be obtained . . . were duplicative of material provided through prior authorizations”). Yasemin cannot and has not established her right to additional documents from Messrs. Beck or Michaels, as she cannot show that the documents she seeks are “material and necessary” to this action. Yasemin’s request should be denied. Very truly yours, Meghan E. Hill cc: Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF) 2 Yasemin criticizes Defendants’ failure to state in the Beck and Michaels’ R&Os that “all documents responsive” to particular requests had been produced, neglecting the fact that the documents were only produced subject to the parties’ negotiated narrowing of the requests. 3 In re Driver, 117 A.D.2d 224 (1st Dept 1986) and In re Spiegelman, 116 A.D.2d 346 (1st Dept 1986) both concern a motion to suspend an attorney and discuss the obligation of an attorney to investigate allegations of attorney misconduct. Neither case references CPLR 3122 or Rule 11-e (or CPLR 3101, for that matter). Id.