On December 21, 2020 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
Yasemin Tekiner,
Yasemin Tekiner
In Her Individual Capacity, As A Beneficiary And A Trustee Of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust And Derivatively As A Holder Of Equitable Interests In A Shareholder Or A Member Of The Company Defendants,
and
254-258 W. 35Th St. Llc,
Berrin Tekiner,
Billur Akipek
In Her Capacity As A Trustee Of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust,
Bremen House Inc.,
Bremen House Texas, Inc.,
German News Company, Inc.,
German News Texas, Inc.,
Gonca Tekiner,
Zeynep Tekiner,
for Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
EXHIBIT 29
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
Meghan E. Hill
Direct Tel: 212-326-0808
Direct Fax: 212-326-0806
MHill@PRYORCASHMAN.com
November 30, 2022
VIA NYSCEF
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of New York – Commercial Division
60 Centre Street, Courtroom 208
New York, New York 10007
Re: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. et al., Index No. 657193/2020
Dear Justice Cohen:
We represent Defendants in the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to Commercial
Division Rule 14 and Section VI.B of the Part 3 Individual Practices and Procedures, we write in
response to Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner’s November 22, 2022 letter requesting a conference and an
order (a) setting a final date by which Defendants are to produce all non-privileged documents to
Yasemin, and (b) requiring Defendants to provide a sworn affidavit of completeness by the same
date.
As detailed below, Yasemin fails to offer any legitimate basis for the relief sought – the
alleged “serious issues” identified by Yasemin are contrived and non-existent – and Yasemin’s
request should be denied.
Yasemin’s letter largely concerns Defendants’ substantial efforts to comply with this
Court’s August 17, 2022 order resolving Motion Sequence No. 22. Yasemin does not dispute that,
pursuant to the Court’s order, Defendants re-reviewed approximately 10,000 documents originally
withheld as privileged, de-designating and producing 7,987 documents that were previously
withheld. Instead, Yasemin claims that Defendants took too long to complete the re-review and
that “serious issues” remain, supposedly justifying the relief sought. But these manufactured
“issues” are not issues at all.
For example, while Yasemin accuses Defendants of “inexplicably” continuing to withhold
1,069 documents, there is nothing inexplicable or mysterious about it. As Yasemin knows, this is
the subset of documents—representing less than 0.8% of the responsive documents identified by
Defendants to date (the remaining 129,627 have been produced)—that, after re-review, were
determined to still be privileged in accordance with the Court’s guidance. Each of these documents
appears on the amended privilege log served on Plaintiffs.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C.
November 30, 2022
Page 2
Yasemin similarly contends without basis that Defendants are “refusing” to produce 467
“responsive documents” that appeared on Defendants’ original privilege log. This is also untrue.
As previously explained to Yasemin, during Defendants’ re-review of the documents originally
withheld as privilege, these documents were determined to be non-responsive and thus erroneously
logged on the original privilege log. No responsive documents have been withheld except those
that are privileged and logged as such.
Yasemin also claims that 16 documents that appeared on Defendants’ original privilege
log are “entirely unaccounted for” in Defendants’ amended privilege log. This too is false. Each
of these documents was collected from Zeynep Tekiner prior to her intervening in this action as a
plaintiff. At the insistence of Zeynep’s counsel, all of these documents (and all other documents
collected from Zeynep) have been segregated and provided to Zeynep’s counsel, and are no longer
available to Defendants.
Finally, Yasemin refers to 15 documents produced on November 15, 2022 as supposedly
“call[ing] into question the integrity of Defendants’ entire document collection process.” This
accusation is also entirely unfounded. Yasemin fails to mention that this small supplemental
production was made in response to a request made at Gonca Tekiner Chelsea’s October 12, 2022
deposition. Nothing about this production—which represents .01% of the total number of
documents produced by Defendants to date—suggests any deficiency or impropriety regarding
Defendants’ document collection process.
Yasemin lacks any basis for the relief sought, and her request should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Meghan E. Hill
cc: Counsel of Record (via email)
Document Filed Date
January 31, 2023
Case Filing Date
December 21, 2020
Category
Commercial Division
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 EXHIBIT 29 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 Meghan E. Hill Direct Tel: 212-326-0808 Direct Fax: 212-326-0806 MHill@PRYORCASHMAN.com November 30, 2022 VIA NYSCEF Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York – Commercial Division 60 Centre Street, Courtroom 208 New York, New York 10007 Re: Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc. et al., Index No. 657193/2020 Dear Justice Cohen: We represent Defendants in the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to Commercial Division Rule 14 and Section VI.B of the Part 3 Individual Practices and Procedures, we write in response to Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner’s November 22, 2022 letter requesting a conference and an order (a) setting a final date by which Defendants are to produce all non-privileged documents to Yasemin, and (b) requiring Defendants to provide a sworn affidavit of completeness by the same date. As detailed below, Yasemin fails to offer any legitimate basis for the relief sought – the alleged “serious issues” identified by Yasemin are contrived and non-existent – and Yasemin’s request should be denied. Yasemin’s letter largely concerns Defendants’ substantial efforts to comply with this Court’s August 17, 2022 order resolving Motion Sequence No. 22. Yasemin does not dispute that, pursuant to the Court’s order, Defendants re-reviewed approximately 10,000 documents originally withheld as privileged, de-designating and producing 7,987 documents that were previously withheld. Instead, Yasemin claims that Defendants took too long to complete the re-review and that “serious issues” remain, supposedly justifying the relief sought. But these manufactured “issues” are not issues at all. For example, while Yasemin accuses Defendants of “inexplicably” continuing to withhold 1,069 documents, there is nothing inexplicable or mysterious about it. As Yasemin knows, this is the subset of documents—representing less than 0.8% of the responsive documents identified by Defendants to date (the remaining 129,627 have been produced)—that, after re-review, were determined to still be privileged in accordance with the Court’s guidance. Each of these documents appears on the amended privilege log served on Plaintiffs. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1161 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 Hon. Joel M. Cohen, J.S.C. November 30, 2022 Page 2 Yasemin similarly contends without basis that Defendants are “refusing” to produce 467 “responsive documents” that appeared on Defendants’ original privilege log. This is also untrue. As previously explained to Yasemin, during Defendants’ re-review of the documents originally withheld as privilege, these documents were determined to be non-responsive and thus erroneously logged on the original privilege log. No responsive documents have been withheld except those that are privileged and logged as such. Yasemin also claims that 16 documents that appeared on Defendants’ original privilege log are “entirely unaccounted for” in Defendants’ amended privilege log. This too is false. Each of these documents was collected from Zeynep Tekiner prior to her intervening in this action as a plaintiff. At the insistence of Zeynep’s counsel, all of these documents (and all other documents collected from Zeynep) have been segregated and provided to Zeynep’s counsel, and are no longer available to Defendants. Finally, Yasemin refers to 15 documents produced on November 15, 2022 as supposedly “call[ing] into question the integrity of Defendants’ entire document collection process.” This accusation is also entirely unfounded. Yasemin fails to mention that this small supplemental production was made in response to a request made at Gonca Tekiner Chelsea’s October 12, 2022 deposition. Nothing about this production—which represents .01% of the total number of documents produced by Defendants to date—suggests any deficiency or impropriety regarding Defendants’ document collection process. Yasemin lacks any basis for the relief sought, and her request should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Meghan E. Hill cc: Counsel of Record (via email)