Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
EXHIBIT 24
Non-Party Philip Michaels’s Amended Responses and Objections to Subpoena
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
YASEMIN TEKINER, Index No. 657193/2020
in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Commercial Division Part 3
Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants
Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable Hon. Joel M. Cohen
interests in a shareholder or a member of the
Company Defendants, NON-PARTY PHILIP
MICHAELS’ AMENDED
Plaintiff, RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
-against-
BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS
COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA
TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity
as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011
Descendants Trust,
Defendants.
ZEYNEP TEKINER,
in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a
Trustee of The Zeynep Tekiner 2011 Descendants
Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable
interests in a shareholder or a member of the
Company Defendants
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
-against-
BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS
COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA
TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity
as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011
Descendants Trust,
Defendants.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, non-party Philip
Michaels (“Michaels”) hereby amends his October 27, 2022 Responses and Objections to Plaintiff
Yasemin Tekiner’s subpoena duces tecum (the “Subpoena”), dated September 19, 2022,
(“Requests”), as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they purport to impose obligations
beyond or inconsistent with the CPLR and the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court, the
Rules of the Commercial Division, or Part 14 Rules.
2. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they call for the disclosure of
information or the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney
work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, or that are otherwise protected from
disclosure under applicable privileges, immunities, statutes, regulations, or rules. The inadvertent
production of any document which is confidential or which contains confidential or proprietary
information or is privileged under any relevant doctrine under law, or was prepared in anticipation
of litigation or for trial, shall not constitute a waiver of any such privilege or of any other ground
for objection to discovery with respect to such document, the information contained therein, or the
subject matter thereof, or of any party or non-party’s right to object to the use of such document
or information contained therein during the trial of this matter.
3. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents and/or
information that are not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action.
4. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they seek the production of
documents in the possession, custody, or control of persons or entities other than Defendants.
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
5. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they seek confidential or proprietary
information.
6. Michaels’ responses are made without waiving or intending to waive, but, instead,
preserving and intending to preserve:
a. The right to raise all questions of authenticity, relevancy, materiality, privilege,
and admissibility as evidence for any purpose with respect to the information
provided in response to these Requests, which may arise in any subsequent
proceeding in, or the trial of, this or any other action;
b. The right to object on any ground at any time to other Requests or other
discovery involving the information or the subject matter thereof;
7. Neither an indication that documents will be produced nor an objection to a
particular Request indicates that documents responsive to that Request exist. By agreeing to
comply with a particular Request, Michaels represents only that he will conduct a reasonably
diligent search for documents and, subject to all objections, produce non-objectionable, non-
privileged documents responsive thereto.
8. Michaels reserves his right to supplement these responses with any non-privileged,
responsive information it subsequently may discover.
9. Michaels objects to Definition No. 1, defining the term “Companies,” as overly
broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, because it includes “officers, directors,
employees, 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” and because itincludes entities that have been dismissed as
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
defendants in this action. Michaels will understand “Companies” to mean Defendants Bremen
House, Inc. and German News Company, Inc. only.
10. Michaels objects to Definition No. 2, defining the term “Defendants,” as overly
broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, because it includes “officers, directors,
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.” For purposes of this response, Defendants will understand
“Defendants” to mean the named Defendants in this action only.
11. Michaels objects to Definition No. 3, defining the term, “Norton Rose,” as overly
broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes in that definition undefined
“any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, employees, contractors, agents,
advisors, professionals, directors, officers, or any other entity related thereto.” For purposes of this
response, Michaels will understand “Norton Rose” to mean Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP only
12. Michaels objects to Definition No. 4, defining the term, “Yasemin,” 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”
as Michaels does not know who all of these individuals or entities are or could be. For purposes of
this response, Michaels will understand “Yasemin” to mean Yasemin Tekiner only.
13. Michaels objects to Definition No. 6, defining the term, “communication” 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.
14. Michaels objects to Definition No. 8, defining the term, “document” to the extent
that it exceeds the scope of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. Michaels also
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
objects to the definition 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.
15. Michaels objects to Definition No. 9, defining the terms “You,” and “Your” as
overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, because it includes “Philip J. Michaels,
and any of your predecessors, successors, affiliates, partners, agents, employees, accountants,
lawyers and/or any other person(s) acting on your behalf” and also includes “Norton Rose and any
of its parent companies, subsidiary companies, predecessors, successors, affiliates, partners, and
any or all of their stockholders, agents, employees, accountants, lawyers and/or any other person(s)
acting on their behalf.” Michaels will understand the terms “You” and “Your” to mean Philip J.
Michaels only.
16. Michaels objects to Instruction No. 1 because it defines the relevant time period for
all of the Requests as “2011 to the present,” which period is overly broad, unduly burdensome,
and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Moreover, this time
period excessively pre-dates any statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims.
17. Michaels objects to Instruction Nos. 7 and 10 to the extent they seek to impose
obligations on Defendant beyond the requirements of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial
Division Rules.
18. Michaels objects to Instruction No. 7 as unduly burdensome and unreasonable in
light of the effort and expense to locate the information because it seeks to impose unreasonable
requirements on the form of his production of electronically stored information (“ESI”).
19. Michaels’ General Objections set forth in this section shall be deemed to continue
throughout the responses to the specific Requests described below, even where not further referred
to in such responses.
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
SPECIFIC RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS
REQUEST NO. 1:
All engagement letters between You and Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, or any trust or
entity created, owned or affiliated with Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2:
Documents sufficient to identify all of Your attorneys and employees who have provided services
to or for the benefit of Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, or any trust or entity created,
owned or affiliated with Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3:
All invoices for services that you have provided to or for the benefit of Defendants, Yasemin, or
Zeynep Tekiner, or any trust or entity created, owned or affiliated with Defendants, Yasemin, or
Zeynep Tekiner.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4:
Documents sufficient to identify all payments made for services provided to or for the benefit of
Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, or any trust or entity created, owned or affiliated with
Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, including but not limited to the payor, the payment date,
and payment amount.
RESPONSE:
7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5:
All documents concerning any trust created by Sami Tekiner.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6:
All documents concerning any will of Sami Tekiner.
RESPONSE:
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7:
All documents concerning the estate of Sami Tekiner.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8:
All communications with Defendants.
RESPONSE:
9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9:
All communications with Yasemin.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:
All communications with Zeynep Tekiner.
10
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:
All documents and correspondence related to the sale or contemplated sale of properties owned by
the Companies to Extell or other buyers, including but not limited to, any final or draft contracts,
correspondence related to negotiations with the prospective buyers, the status of any down
payments for the sales, how the sales prices were set, the status of any pre-closing conditions and
the status of any closings.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:
All documents concerning any offers for or due diligence conducted by Extell or any other
potential buyers of those properties.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13:
All documents and communications concerning any advice provided by Norton regarding the
Extell sale and how the Companies responded to such advice.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14:
All analyses provided or prepared by real estate advisors concerning any properties owned by the
Companies.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
iv. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
v. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
vi. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15:
All documents related to any appraisals of any properties owned by the Companies.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:
All documents and communications related to or concerning Yasemin’s removal as a Trustee of
the Trust in 2017 and 2020/2021.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17:
All documents and communications related to or concerning Yasemin’s removal as Director or
Officer of the Companies in 2017 and 2020/2021.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18:
All documents and communications concerning Yasemin’s potential or actual removal,
termination, or resignation from any position at the Companies or any trust.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena,
as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and
Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be
collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19:
All documents and communications concerning Zeynep Tekiner’s potential or actual removal,
termination, or resignation from any position at the Companies or any trust.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF
Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan
Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the
documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF
Subpoena;
15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20:
All documents and communications concerning Gonca Tekiner’s potential or actual removal,
termination, or resignation from any position at the Companies or any trust, including but not
limited to Your communications regarding Gonca’s actual termination.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF
Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan
Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the
documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF
Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21:
All documents and communications concerning any loss of Yasemin’s access to the Companies’
electronic systems, including the Companies’ servers and email system.
RESPONSE:
Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein
and further states that, subject to the following:
i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the NRF Subpoena;
ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and
16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF
Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan
Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the
documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF
Subpoena;
all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants
under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22:
All documents
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 EXHIBIT 24 Non-Party Philip Michaels’s Amended Responses and Objections to Subpoena FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK YASEMIN TEKINER, Index No. 657193/2020 in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Commercial Division Part 3 Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable Hon. Joel M. Cohen interests in a shareholder or a member of the Company Defendants, NON-PARTY PHILIP MICHAELS’ AMENDED Plaintiff, RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM -against- BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, Defendants. ZEYNEP TEKINER, in her individual capacity, as a beneficiary and a Trustee of The Zeynep Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable interests in a shareholder or a member of the Company Defendants Intervenor-Plaintiff, -against- BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, Defendants. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, non-party Philip Michaels (“Michaels”) hereby amends his October 27, 2022 Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner’s subpoena duces tecum (the “Subpoena”), dated September 19, 2022, (“Requests”), as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they purport to impose obligations beyond or inconsistent with the CPLR and the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court, the Rules of the Commercial Division, or Part 14 Rules. 2. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they call for the disclosure of information or the production of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, or that are otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable privileges, immunities, statutes, regulations, or rules. The inadvertent production of any document which is confidential or which contains confidential or proprietary information or is privileged under any relevant doctrine under law, or was prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, shall not constitute a waiver of any such privilege or of any other ground for objection to discovery with respect to such document, the information contained therein, or the subject matter thereof, or of any party or non-party’s right to object to the use of such document or information contained therein during the trial of this matter. 3. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents and/or information that are not material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of this action. 4. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they seek the production of documents in the possession, custody, or control of persons or entities other than Defendants. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 5. Michaels objects to the Requests to the extent they seek confidential or proprietary information. 6. Michaels’ responses are made without waiving or intending to waive, but, instead, preserving and intending to preserve: a. The right to raise all questions of authenticity, relevancy, materiality, privilege, and admissibility as evidence for any purpose with respect to the information provided in response to these Requests, which may arise in any subsequent proceeding in, or the trial of, this or any other action; b. The right to object on any ground at any time to other Requests or other discovery involving the information or the subject matter thereof; 7. Neither an indication that documents will be produced nor an objection to a particular Request indicates that documents responsive to that Request exist. By agreeing to comply with a particular Request, Michaels represents only that he will conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents and, subject to all objections, produce non-objectionable, non- privileged documents responsive thereto. 8. Michaels reserves his right to supplement these responses with any non-privileged, responsive information it subsequently may discover. 9. Michaels objects to Definition No. 1, defining the term “Companies,” as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, because it includes “officers, directors, employees, 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” and because itincludes entities that have been dismissed as 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 defendants in this action. Michaels will understand “Companies” to mean Defendants Bremen House, Inc. and German News Company, Inc. only. 10. Michaels objects to Definition No. 2, defining the term “Defendants,” as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, because it includes “officers, directors, 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.” For purposes of this response, Defendants will understand “Defendants” to mean the named Defendants in this action only. 11. Michaels objects to Definition No. 3, defining the term, “Norton Rose,” as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes in that definition undefined “any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, employees, contractors, agents, advisors, professionals, directors, officers, or any other entity related thereto.” For purposes of this response, Michaels will understand “Norton Rose” to mean Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP only 12. Michaels objects to Definition No. 4, defining the term, “Yasemin,” 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” as Michaels does not know who all of these individuals or entities are or could be. For purposes of this response, Michaels will understand “Yasemin” to mean Yasemin Tekiner only. 13. Michaels objects to Definition No. 6, defining the term, “communication” 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. 14. Michaels objects to Definition No. 8, defining the term, “document” to the extent that it exceeds the scope of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. Michaels also 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 objects to the definition 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. 15. Michaels objects to Definition No. 9, defining the terms “You,” and “Your” as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, because it includes “Philip J. Michaels, and any of your predecessors, successors, affiliates, partners, agents, employees, accountants, lawyers and/or any other person(s) acting on your behalf” and also includes “Norton Rose and any of its parent companies, subsidiary companies, predecessors, successors, affiliates, partners, and any or all of their stockholders, agents, employees, accountants, lawyers and/or any other person(s) acting on their behalf.” Michaels will understand the terms “You” and “Your” to mean Philip J. Michaels only. 16. Michaels objects to Instruction No. 1 because it defines the relevant time period for all of the Requests as “2011 to the present,” which period is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Moreover, this time period excessively pre-dates any statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims. 17. Michaels objects to Instruction Nos. 7 and 10 to the extent they seek to impose obligations on Defendant beyond the requirements of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. 18. Michaels objects to Instruction No. 7 as unduly burdensome and unreasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information because it seeks to impose unreasonable requirements on the form of his production of electronically stored information (“ESI”). 19. Michaels’ General Objections set forth in this section shall be deemed to continue throughout the responses to the specific Requests described below, even where not further referred to in such responses. 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 SPECIFIC RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS REQUEST NO. 1: All engagement letters between You and Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, or any trust or entity created, owned or affiliated with Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: Documents sufficient to identify all of Your attorneys and employees who have provided services to or for the benefit of Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, or any trust or entity created, owned or affiliated with Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3: All invoices for services that you have provided to or for the benefit of Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, or any trust or entity created, owned or affiliated with Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4: Documents sufficient to identify all payments made for services provided to or for the benefit of Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, or any trust or entity created, owned or affiliated with Defendants, Yasemin, or Zeynep Tekiner, including but not limited to the payor, the payment date, and payment amount. RESPONSE: 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5: All documents concerning any trust created by Sami Tekiner. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6: All documents concerning any will of Sami Tekiner. RESPONSE: 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7: All documents concerning the estate of Sami Tekiner. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: All communications with Defendants. RESPONSE: 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9: All communications with Yasemin. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10: All communications with Zeynep Tekiner. 10 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11: All documents and correspondence related to the sale or contemplated sale of properties owned by the Companies to Extell or other buyers, including but not limited to, any final or draft contracts, correspondence related to negotiations with the prospective buyers, the status of any down payments for the sales, how the sales prices were set, the status of any pre-closing conditions and the status of any closings. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12: All documents concerning any offers for or due diligence conducted by Extell or any other potential buyers of those properties. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13: All documents and communications concerning any advice provided by Norton regarding the Extell sale and how the Companies responded to such advice. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14: All analyses provided or prepared by real estate advisors concerning any properties owned by the Companies. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: iv. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; v. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and vi. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15: All documents related to any appraisals of any properties owned by the Companies. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. 13 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16: All documents and communications related to or concerning Yasemin’s removal as a Trustee of the Trust in 2017 and 2020/2021. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17: All documents and communications related to or concerning Yasemin’s removal as Director or Officer of the Companies in 2017 and 2020/2021. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18: All documents and communications concerning Yasemin’s potential or actual removal, termination, or resignation from any position at the Companies or any trust. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19: All documents and communications concerning Zeynep Tekiner’s potential or actual removal, termination, or resignation from any position at the Companies or any trust. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; 15 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20: All documents and communications concerning Gonca Tekiner’s potential or actual removal, termination, or resignation from any position at the Companies or any trust, including but not limited to Your communications regarding Gonca’s actual termination. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21: All documents and communications concerning any loss of Yasemin’s access to the Companies’ electronic systems, including the Companies’ servers and email system. RESPONSE: Michaels incorporates by reference his General Objections as though fully set forth herein and further states that, subject to the following: i. the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the NRF Subpoena; ii. the Objections and Responses to the NRF Subpoena served June 14, 2021; and 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1055 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 iii. the parties’ extensive efforts to meet and confer as to the scope of the NRF Subpoena, as reflected in a November 23, 2021 email from Sean Topping to Evan Mandel and Leah Vickers summarizing the parties’ agreement regarding the documents to be collected, reviewed, produced and logged in response to the NRF Subpoena; all documents responsive to the Michaels Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22: All documents