Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
EXHIBIT 49
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
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
Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Commercial Division Part 3
Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of
equitable interests in a shareholder or a member Hon. Joel M. Cohen
of the Company Defendants
NON-PARTY ALLEN BECK’S
Plaintiff, RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
-against-
BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE
TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY,
INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254-258
W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER,
GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in
her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin
Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust,
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., BREMEN HOUSE
TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY,
INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254-258
W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER,
GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in
her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin
Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust,
Defendants.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, non-party Allen
Beck (“Beck”) by and through his undersigned counsel, responds as follows to the Requests for
Documents in Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated September 19, 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 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
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 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
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 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
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 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
Beck further objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are
also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce.
6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
Beck further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it fails to define which
properties and which realized or contemplated property transactions are the subject of the Request
and therefore forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct a grossly overly broad
document review, which is unduly burdensome especially on a non-party. Beck objects to this
Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and
correspondence relating to realized or contemplated property transactions, without specificity or
limitation as to time period, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and
defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense locate the information. Beck
objects to the request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate
to the needs of the case, as any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and
accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck
further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck
& Baumann began working for Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
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 objects to this Requests because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because itfails to define which properties and
which realized or contemplated property transactions are the subject of the Request and therefore
forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct a grossly overly broad document
review, which is unduly burdensome especially on a non-party. Beck objects to this Request as
overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and correspondence relating
to realized or contemplated property transactions, without specificity or limitation as to time
period, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case
nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense locate the information. Beck objects to the request
that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the
case, as any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to
produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this
Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began
working for Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
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.
RESPONSE:
Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though
fully set forth herein. Beck objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
8
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all
documents and communications relating to any mortgages on any of the properties owned by the
Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the
case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to
the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the
needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and
accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck
further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck
further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that
are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the
extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for
Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all
documents and communications relating to profit and loss statements of the Companies, which
information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable
in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he
produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as
he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines
to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this
Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further objects to the
Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the
ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks
information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
10
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it, alternatively, requests documents
showing “compensation,” provided by the Companies but then attempts to define such terms in a
way that greatly expands the meaning of the word. Therefore, the Request forces Beck to conceive
of all possible scenarios and conduct an overly broad document review, which is unduly
burdensome on a non-party. Beck further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome because it seeks documents and communications concerning compensation, property
purchases and sales, leases, and/or housing arrangements, of directors, officers and employees and
their families who are not parties to this litigation, which information is not “material and
necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense
to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly
burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant
correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email
communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it
seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it
requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their
business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent itseeks information prior to 2019,
which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
11
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it, alternatively, requests documents
showing “payments, benefits, things of value, or other consideration” provided by the Companies
but then attempts to define such terms in a way that greatly expands the meaning of those words;
or refers to various properties purchased or leases entered into without defining or explaining them
with necessary specificity. Therefore, the Request forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios
and conduct an overly broad document review, which is unduly burdensome on a non-party. Beck
further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks documents
and communications concerning compensation, property purchases and sales, leases, and/or
housing arrangements, of directors, officers and employees and their families who are not parties
to this litigation, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in
the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects
to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the
12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and
accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck
further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck
further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that
are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the
extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for
Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it fails to specify which properties it
concerns, which advisors or appraisals itconcerns, or provide a reasonable time frame for the
request and, therefore, forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct an overly
broad document review, which is unduly burdensome on a non-party. Beck further objects to this
Request because it seeks information relating to all analyses and any of the Companies’ properties
13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
within a ten-year time frame and therefore includes properties not referenced in the Complaint
and/or currently owned by the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to
the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the
information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome
and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will
be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in
response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck &
Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck
further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck
& Baumann began working for Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8:
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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it fails to specify which properties it
concerns, which advisors or appraisals itconcerns, or provide a reasonable time frame for the
14
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
request and, therefore, forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct an overly
broad document review, which is unduly burdensome on a non-party. Beck further objects to this
Request because it seeks information relating to all analyses and any of the Companies’ properties
within a ten-year time frame and therefore includes properties not referenced in the Complaint
and/or currently owned by the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to
the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the
information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome
and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will
be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in
response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck &
Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck
further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck
& Baumann began working for Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
15
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all
documents and communications relating to all Company expenses during a ten-year time frame,
which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor
reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request
that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the
case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly
declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further
objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not
kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it
seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or
records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann.
Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also
sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck
16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023
further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all
documents and communications relating to all Company assets during a ten-year time frame,
which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor
reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request
that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the
case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly
declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further
objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further
objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not
kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it
seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this
Request have already been produced by Defendants.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:
All documents and communications concerning any lease or other contract between any of the
Companies and any r
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 EXHIBIT 49 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 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 Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Commercial Division Part 3 Descendants Trust and derivatively as a holder of equitable interests in a shareholder or a member Hon. Joel M. Cohen of the Company Defendants NON-PARTY ALLEN BECK’S Plaintiff, RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM -against- BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254-258 W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, 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., BREMEN HOUSE TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC., 254-258 W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, and BILLUR AKIPEK, in her capacity as a Trustee of The Yasemin Tekiner 2011 Descendants Trust, Defendants. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 Pursuant to Section 3122 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, non-party Allen Beck (“Beck”) by and through his undersigned counsel, responds as follows to the Requests for Documents in Plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated September 19, 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 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 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 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 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 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 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 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. Beck further objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 Beck further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it fails to define which properties and which realized or contemplated property transactions are the subject of the Request and therefore forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct a grossly overly broad document review, which is unduly burdensome especially on a non-party. Beck objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and correspondence relating to realized or contemplated property transactions, without specificity or limitation as to time period, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense locate the information. Beck objects to the request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. 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 objects to this Requests because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also 7 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because itfails to define which properties and which realized or contemplated property transactions are the subject of the Request and therefore forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct a grossly overly broad document review, which is unduly burdensome especially on a non-party. Beck objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and correspondence relating to realized or contemplated property transactions, without specificity or limitation as to time period, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense locate the information. Beck objects to the request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. 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. RESPONSE: Beck incorporates by reference his Objections to Definitions and Instructions as though fully set forth herein. Beck objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and communications relating to any mortgages on any of the properties owned by the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. 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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and communications relating to profit and loss statements of the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. 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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or 10 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it, alternatively, requests documents showing “compensation,” provided by the Companies but then attempts to define such terms in a way that greatly expands the meaning of the word. Therefore, the Request forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct an overly broad document review, which is unduly burdensome on a non-party. Beck further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks documents and communications concerning compensation, property purchases and sales, leases, and/or housing arrangements, of directors, officers and employees and their families who are not parties to this litigation, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent itseeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. 11 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it, alternatively, requests documents showing “payments, benefits, things of value, or other consideration” provided by the Companies but then attempts to define such terms in a way that greatly expands the meaning of those words; or refers to various properties purchased or leases entered into without defining or explaining them with necessary specificity. Therefore, the Request forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct an overly broad document review, which is unduly burdensome on a non-party. Beck further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks documents and communications concerning compensation, property purchases and sales, leases, and/or housing arrangements, of directors, officers and employees and their families who are not parties to this litigation, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the 12 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. 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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it fails to specify which properties it concerns, which advisors or appraisals itconcerns, or provide a reasonable time frame for the request and, therefore, forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct an overly broad document review, which is unduly burdensome on a non-party. Beck further objects to this Request because it seeks information relating to all analyses and any of the Companies’ properties 13 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 within a ten-year time frame and therefore includes properties not referenced in the Complaint and/or currently owned by the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8: 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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because it fails to specify which properties it concerns, which advisors or appraisals itconcerns, or provide a reasonable time frame for the 14 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 request and, therefore, forces Beck to conceive of all possible scenarios and conduct an overly broad document review, which is unduly burdensome on a non-party. Beck further objects to this Request because it seeks information relating to all analyses and any of the Companies’ properties within a ten-year time frame and therefore includes properties not referenced in the Complaint and/or currently owned by the Companies, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. 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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also 15 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and communications relating to all Company expenses during a ten-year time frame, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. 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 objects to this Request because he has no accounting or other files or records for the Companies in his personal possession, as such files belong to Beck & Baumann. Beck objects to the Request as duplicative, harassing, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks documents from a non-party that are also sought from Defendants, and which Beck understands Defendants have agreed to produce. Beck 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2023 03:42 AM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2023 further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks all documents and communications relating to all Company assets during a ten-year time frame, which information is not “material and necessary” to the claims and defenses in the case nor reasonable in light of the effort and expense to locate the information. Beck objects to the Request that he produce communications as unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case, as he understands any relevant correspondence will be in Defendants’ files, and accordingly declines to produce ESI or email communications in response to the Subpoena. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential or proprietary information. Beck further objects to the Request to the extent it requires Beck & Baumann to create documents that are not kept in the ordinary course of their business. Beck further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information prior to 2019, which is when Beck & Baumann began working for Defendants. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Beck states that documents responsive to this Request have already been produced by Defendants. DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11: All documents and communications concerning any lease or other contract between any of the Companies and any r