Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
EXHIBIT 23
Non-Party Allen Beck’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. 1054 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 ALLEN BECK’S
AMENDED RESPONSES AND
Plaintiff, 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. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, non-party Allen
Beck (“Beck”) by and through his undersigned counsel, amends his Objections and Responses to
the Beck Subpoena, served October 27, 2022, as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Beck 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. Beck 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 Beck’s right to object to the use of such document or information contained therein
during the trial of this matter.
3. Beck 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. Beck 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 Beck.
5. Beck objects to the Requests to the extent they seek confidential or proprietary
information.
2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
6. Beck’s 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;
c. The right to supplement or amend responses if Plaintiff uncovers additional
information called for by these Requests, as Plaintiff’s investigation of the facts
has not been completed.
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, Beck represents only that it will conduct a reasonably diligent
search for documents and, subject to all objections, produce non-objectionable, non-privileged
documents responsive thereto.
8. Beck reserves his right to supplement these responses with any non-privileged,
responsive information it subsequently may discover.
9. Beck 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
3
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
on their behalf.” Beck will understand “Companies” to mean Defendants Bremen House, Inc. and
German News Company, Inc. only.
10. Beck 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. Beck objects to Definition No. 3, 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 Defendants do not know who all of these individuals or entities are or could be. For purposes
of this response, Defendants will understand “Yasemin” to mean Yasemin Tekiner only.
12. Beck objects to Definition No. 5, 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.
13. Beck objects to Definition No. 7, defining the term “Beck & Baumann,” as overly
broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, because itincludes “subsidiaries, affiliates,
predecessors, successors, employees, contractors, agents, advisors, professionals, directors, [and]
officers” of Defendants, as well as “any other entity related thereto.” For purposes of this response,
Beck will understand “Beck & Baumann” to mean the firm of Beck & Baumann, CPA, LLC only.
14. Beck 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. Defendants also
4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
object 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. Beck objects to the definition of “you” and “your” in paragraph 9 of the Subpoena
as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “Beck &
Baumann,” whereas the Subpoena is directed to Beck himself and incorporates the objectionable
definition of “any other person(s) acting on their behalf” similar to the one found in paragraph 2
defining “Defendants.” For purposes of this response, Beck defines “you” as the named non-party
Allen Beck.
16. Beck objects to Instruction Nos. 5 and 8 to the extent they seek to impose
obligations on Defendant beyond the requirements of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial
Division Rules.
17. Beck objects to Instruction No. 5 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 Beck’s production of electronically stored information (“ESI”).
18. Beck 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 Beck & Bauman’s engagement by Bremen House, which only began in
2019, as well as any statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’s claims.
19. Beck objects to the Subpoena as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it is
duplicative of documents and information already sought from Defendants in this action.
5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
20. Beck objects to the Subpoena as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it is
duplicative of documents and information already sought from Beck & Bauman in this action via
subpoena dated June 24, 2021.
21. Beck objects to the Subpoena because it is directed at him personally, but it seeks
the production of documents that are within the possession, custody, or control of Beck &
Baumann.
22. Beck objects to the Subpoena as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it
seeks documents spanning an inordinately and unreasonably long time period, including a period
of time that long pre-dates Beck & Baumann’s work for the Companies.
23. Beck’s 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.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1:
All documents and correspondence related to the sale or contemplated sale of properties owned by
the Companies, 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:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena,” which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena); and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under
the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2:
All documents concerning any offers for or due diligence conducted by potential buyers of those
properties.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck 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 documents and communications relating to any mortgages on any of the properties owned by
the Companies, including the balances owed on such mortgages, and any applications or
commitments for any further loans, refinancings or mortgages.
7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under
the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4:
All documents and communications relating to profit and loss statements of the Companies.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under
the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5:
All documents and communications relating to the compensation of the Companies’ directors,
officers and employees, including but not limited to salaries, bonuses, expense reimbursements,
commissions, consulting fees, pension plan contributions, profit-sharing, use of the Companies’
credit cards, personal services, housing expenses, loans guaranteed by the Companies, interest,
dividends and/or gifts.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck 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 and communications relating to payments, benefits, things of value, or other
consideration provided by the Companies to any of their shareholders, directors, officers, or
employees, including but not limited to salaries, bonuses, expense reimbursements, commissions,
consulting fees, pension plan contributions, profit-sharing, use of the Companies’ credit cards,
personal services, housing expenses, loans guaranteed by the Companies, interest, dividends
and/or gifts.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck 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 and communications relating to any analyses by real estate advisors concerning any
properties owned by the Companies.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under
the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8:
10
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
All documents and communications relating to any appraisals of any properties owned by the
Companies.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck 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 documents related to the Companies’ expenses.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under
the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:
A listing of all assets of the Companies.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck 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 communications concerning any lease or other contract between any of the
Companies and any relative, friend, employee, or independent contractor of an employee, officer,
or director of any of the Companies.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under
the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:
All documents and communications concerning any transaction between any of the Companies
and any employee, officer, or director of any of the Companies.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck 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 concerning the Companies’ solicitation or receipt of offers to purchase any of the
Companies’ assets.
13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel
regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually
(seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the
B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under
the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14:
All documents or communications concerning the re-investment, including through what is known
as a 1031 exchange, of the sales proceeds from the sale of certain Manhattan real estate to Extell.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii)the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking
documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B
Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
all documents responsive to the Beck 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 including all communications concerning any request by any director or
shareholder of the Companies to inspect the Companies’ books and records, including but not
limited to correspondence between Yasemin and the Companies.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii)the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking
documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B
Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under
the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. \
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:
All documents and communications regarding any consideration given by any of the Defendants
to dividing up the assets of the Companies among their shareholders, including but not limited to
the tax implications of doing so.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023
(i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
the Baumann Subpoena;
(iii)the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding
a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking
documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B
Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and
(iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the
necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena,
all documents responsive to the Beck 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 concerning any leases or other arrangements Billur Akipek or any member of her
family has in connection with arrangements to live in or stay at any properties owned by the
Companies.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following:
(i) th
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 EXHIBIT 23 Non-Party Allen Beck’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. 1054 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 ALLEN BECK’S AMENDED RESPONSES AND Plaintiff, 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. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, non-party Allen Beck (“Beck”) by and through his undersigned counsel, amends his Objections and Responses to the Beck Subpoena, served October 27, 2022, as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Beck 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. Beck 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 Beck’s right to object to the use of such document or information contained therein during the trial of this matter. 3. Beck 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. Beck 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 Beck. 5. Beck objects to the Requests to the extent they seek confidential or proprietary information. 2 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 6. Beck’s 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; c. The right to supplement or amend responses if Plaintiff uncovers additional information called for by these Requests, as Plaintiff’s investigation of the facts has not been completed. 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, Beck represents only that it will conduct a reasonably diligent search for documents and, subject to all objections, produce non-objectionable, non-privileged documents responsive thereto. 8. Beck reserves his right to supplement these responses with any non-privileged, responsive information it subsequently may discover. 9. Beck 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 3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 on their behalf.” Beck will understand “Companies” to mean Defendants Bremen House, Inc. and German News Company, Inc. only. 10. Beck 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. Beck objects to Definition No. 3, 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 Defendants do not know who all of these individuals or entities are or could be. For purposes of this response, Defendants will understand “Yasemin” to mean Yasemin Tekiner only. 12. Beck objects to Definition No. 5, 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. 13. Beck objects to Definition No. 7, defining the term “Beck & Baumann,” as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, because itincludes “subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, employees, contractors, agents, advisors, professionals, directors, [and] officers” of Defendants, as well as “any other entity related thereto.” For purposes of this response, Beck will understand “Beck & Baumann” to mean the firm of Beck & Baumann, CPA, LLC only. 14. Beck 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. Defendants also 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 object 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. Beck objects to the definition of “you” and “your” in paragraph 9 of the Subpoena as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it includes “Beck & Baumann,” whereas the Subpoena is directed to Beck himself and incorporates the objectionable definition of “any other person(s) acting on their behalf” similar to the one found in paragraph 2 defining “Defendants.” For purposes of this response, Beck defines “you” as the named non-party Allen Beck. 16. Beck objects to Instruction Nos. 5 and 8 to the extent they seek to impose obligations on Defendant beyond the requirements of CPLR Article 31 and the Commercial Division Rules. 17. Beck objects to Instruction No. 5 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 Beck’s production of electronically stored information (“ESI”). 18. Beck 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 Beck & Bauman’s engagement by Bremen House, which only began in 2019, as well as any statute of limitations applicable to Plaintiff’s claims. 19. Beck objects to the Subpoena as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of documents and information already sought from Defendants in this action. 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 20. Beck objects to the Subpoena as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it is duplicative of documents and information already sought from Beck & Bauman in this action via subpoena dated June 24, 2021. 21. Beck objects to the Subpoena because it is directed at him personally, but it seeks the production of documents that are within the possession, custody, or control of Beck & Baumann. 22. Beck objects to the Subpoena as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks documents spanning an inordinately and unreasonably long time period, including a period of time that long pre-dates Beck & Baumann’s work for the Companies. 23. Beck’s 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. SPECIFIC RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1: All documents and correspondence related to the sale or contemplated sale of properties owned by the Companies, 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: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena,” which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena); and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2: All documents concerning any offers for or due diligence conducted by potential buyers of those properties. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck 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 documents and communications relating to any mortgages on any of the properties owned by the Companies, including the balances owed on such mortgages, and any applications or commitments for any further loans, refinancings or mortgages. 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4: All documents and communications relating to profit and loss statements of the Companies. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5: All documents and communications relating to the compensation of the Companies’ directors, officers and employees, including but not limited to salaries, bonuses, expense reimbursements, commissions, consulting fees, pension plan contributions, profit-sharing, use of the Companies’ credit cards, personal services, housing expenses, loans guaranteed by the Companies, interest, dividends and/or gifts. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck 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 and communications relating to payments, benefits, things of value, or other consideration provided by the Companies to any of their shareholders, directors, officers, or employees, including but not limited to salaries, bonuses, expense reimbursements, commissions, consulting fees, pension plan contributions, profit-sharing, use of the Companies’ credit cards, personal services, housing expenses, loans guaranteed by the Companies, interest, dividends and/or gifts. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck 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 and communications relating to any analyses by real estate advisors concerning any properties owned by the Companies. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: 10 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 All documents and communications relating to any appraisals of any properties owned by the Companies. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck 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 documents related to the Companies’ expenses. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10: A listing of all assets of the Companies. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck 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 communications concerning any lease or other contract between any of the Companies and any relative, friend, employee, or independent contractor of an employee, officer, or director of any of the Companies. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12: All documents and communications concerning any transaction between any of the Companies and any employee, officer, or director of any of the Companies. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck 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 concerning the Companies’ solicitation or receipt of offers to purchase any of the Companies’ assets. 13 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14: All documents or communications concerning the re-investment, including through what is known as a 1031 exchange, of the sales proceeds from the sale of certain Manhattan real estate to Extell. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii)the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 all documents responsive to the Beck 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 including all communications concerning any request by any director or shareholder of the Companies to inspect the Companies’ books and records, including but not limited to correspondence between Yasemin and the Companies. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii)the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck Subpoena have already been produced by Defendants under the Defendants’ bates prefix, except for those logged on Defendants’ privilege log. \ DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16: All documents and communications regarding any consideration given by any of the Defendants to dividing up the assets of the Companies among their shareholders, including but not limited to the tax implications of doing so. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: 15 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2023 06:46 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1054 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2023 (i) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 2, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (ii) the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 7, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding the Baumann Subpoena; (iii)the objections set forth in Defendants’ June 30, 2021 letter to Evan Mandel regarding a second subpoena dated June 25, 2021 on Denise Baumann individually (seeking documents identical to those set forth in the Baumann Subpoena) and the B&B Subpoena, which was also identical to the Baumann Subpoena; and (iv) the August 19, 2021 email from Victoria Corder to Donald Conklin regarding the necessity of a meet and confer to narrow the topics set forth in the B&B Subpoena, all documents responsive to the Beck 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 concerning any leases or other arrangements Billur Akipek or any member of her family has in connection with arrangements to live in or stay at any properties owned by the Companies. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck responds that, subject to the following: (i) th