Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2023 11:32 PM INDEX NO. 900082/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2023
EXHIBIT B
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2023 11:32 PM INDEX NO. 900082/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2023
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York 10018
T (212) 218-5500
F (212) 218-5526
kbitar@seyfarth.com
T (212) 218-5261
www.seyfarth.com
February 21, 2023
VIA E-MAIL
Hillary Nappi, Esq.
Heller, Horowitz & Feit, P.C.
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10016
hnappi@hrsclaw.com
Re: Mishael Dickman v. Yeshiva of South Shore, Index No. 900082/2020
Dear Hillary:
We write on behalf of the Defendant, Yeshiva of South Shore (“YOSS”) in response to your letter
requesting that YOSS provide “more specific answers” to Plaintiff’s’ First Request for the
Production of Documents and Combined Discovery Demands (the “Requests”).
The requests you reference in your letter –– Request Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 23, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35, 45, 46, 47, 51, and 53 –– are poorly written and very broadly drafted in way that they
are entirely unreasonable, not tailored in any way to the facts and circumstances of this action,
and thus simply improper. By way of some examples, Request No. 3 seeks “The documents
concerning Rabbi Yechezkel Lifshitz’s applications to school districts, or places of
employment . . .” Request No. 4 seeks “The documents concerning Rabbi Yechezkel Lifshitz’s
education, training, licenses, certificates, memberships, honors, or awards.” The other requests
you reference are similarly overbroad and improper. YOSS also properly objected to the Plaintiff’s
overly broad definition of the relevant time period. You provide no basis for extending the relevant
time period “to the present” given that Plaintiff’s allegations concern events that occurred in 1982-
1983.
Plaintiff plainly made no effort to narrowly tailor the Requests. Well established New York case
law makes it clear that it is not YOSS’ burden to pare them down. See, e.g., Maraj v. Elec., 2014
WL 6605424 (N.Y. Sup. 2014) (“Plaintiffs have, for example, demanded ‘[a]ll communications and
correspondence between defendants and any MRS employee’ and ‘[a]ll communications between
defendants and any MRS client and/or customer’. The sweeping demands made by plaintiffs are
overly broad and burdensome. Where discovery demands are overly broad and burdensome,
they will be vacated in their entirety rather than pruned . . .); Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh, 45
A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dept. 2007) (finding that the “document demands at issue
were palpably improper in that they sought, inter alia, irrelevant and/or confidential information,
or were overbroad and burdensome” and affirming the motion court’s denial of the plaintiff's
motion to compel and granting the defendants' cross-motion for a protective order); Harris v. City
of New York, 211 A.D.2d 663 (2d Dept. 1995) (affirming the lower court’s order which struck
document demands that were “overly broad and burdensome nature” and of “questionable
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2023 11:32 PM INDEX NO. 900082/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2023
Hillary Nappi, Esq.
February 21, 2023
Page 2
relevance”). Specifically regarding Request No. 53, to which YOSS objected including on the
ground that it is in the form of an interrogatory and precluded pursuant to CPLR § 3130, you
entirely fail to respond to such objection or state why it is proper.
The same is true regarding Plaintiff’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection of Directories and
Corporate Records and Plaintiff’s demand for Surveillance Materials. Contrary to your contention,
an objection on the grounds of relevance — i.e., that the request seeks documents that are not
“material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of [this] action — is proper. See CPLR
3101(a). Moreover, YOSS’ objection to these demands were based, not only on relevance, but
also on the overbreadth of the demands, which are not tailored to the facts or claims asserted by
Plaintiff in this action. For example, Plaintiff seeks “Copies of all rosters, employee lists,
yearbooks, directories, bulletins and similar documents that reflect the name of each person who,
at any time along with the alleged abuser(s), worked at, volunteered at, or was employed by any
Defendant” and “Copies of all articles of incorporation, bylaws, operating agreements, and similar
documents regarding any current or prior corporation or other legal entity that owned any
Defendant. Such demands are patently overbroad and not narrowly tailored to the facts and
claims of this action.
Plaintiff also cannot avoid the fact that in his responses to YOSS’ First Request for Production of
Documents and Things and Combined Discovery Demands, which were more narrowly crafted
and tailored to the specific facts and timeframe of the allegations in this case, Plaintiff frequently
objected to many of the requests and demands, including that “Plaintiff has not completed
(1) investigation of the facts relating to this case; (2) discovery in this action; or (3) preparation for
trial” and that the requests were “vague, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable evidence.” To the extent that you maintain such objections are
improper, we reserve the right to demand supplemental responses from Plaintiff.
Nevertheless, in order to avoid unnecessary disputes, YOSS hereby supplements its responses
to the foregoing requests and demands, by adding the following: Subject to and without waiving
any of YOSS’ general or specific objections, set forth in YOSS’ respective response, YOSS will
produce documents concerning the hierarchical structure of YOSS, school records concerning
Yechezkel Lifshitz or any allegations of abuse by Yechezkel Lifshitz, written school manuals or
policies concerning allegations of sexual abuse, any written statements by Plaintiff, any
photographs of Plaintiff including in yearbooks, and any surveillance material concerning the
Plaintiff in its possession, if any, after completion of a reasonable search.
Very truly yours,
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
/s/ Karen Bitar
Karen Bitar
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2023 11:32 PM INDEX NO. 900082/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2023 EXHIBIT B FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2023 11:32 PM INDEX NO. 900082/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10018 T (212) 218-5500 F (212) 218-5526 kbitar@seyfarth.com T (212) 218-5261 www.seyfarth.com February 21, 2023 VIA E-MAIL Hillary Nappi, Esq. Heller, Horowitz & Feit, P.C. 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10016 hnappi@hrsclaw.com Re: Mishael Dickman v. Yeshiva of South Shore, Index No. 900082/2020 Dear Hillary: We write on behalf of the Defendant, Yeshiva of South Shore (“YOSS”) in response to your letter requesting that YOSS provide “more specific answers” to Plaintiff’s’ First Request for the Production of Documents and Combined Discovery Demands (the “Requests”). The requests you reference in your letter –– Request Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 45, 46, 47, 51, and 53 –– are poorly written and very broadly drafted in way that they are entirely unreasonable, not tailored in any way to the facts and circumstances of this action, and thus simply improper. By way of some examples, Request No. 3 seeks “The documents concerning Rabbi Yechezkel Lifshitz’s applications to school districts, or places of employment . . .” Request No. 4 seeks “The documents concerning Rabbi Yechezkel Lifshitz’s education, training, licenses, certificates, memberships, honors, or awards.” The other requests you reference are similarly overbroad and improper. YOSS also properly objected to the Plaintiff’s overly broad definition of the relevant time period. You provide no basis for extending the relevant time period “to the present” given that Plaintiff’s allegations concern events that occurred in 1982- 1983. Plaintiff plainly made no effort to narrowly tailor the Requests. Well established New York case law makes it clear that it is not YOSS’ burden to pare them down. See, e.g., Maraj v. Elec., 2014 WL 6605424 (N.Y. Sup. 2014) (“Plaintiffs have, for example, demanded ‘[a]ll communications and correspondence between defendants and any MRS employee’ and ‘[a]ll communications between defendants and any MRS client and/or customer’. The sweeping demands made by plaintiffs are overly broad and burdensome. Where discovery demands are overly broad and burdensome, they will be vacated in their entirety rather than pruned . . .); Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. v. Walsh, 45 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dept. 2007) (finding that the “document demands at issue were palpably improper in that they sought, inter alia, irrelevant and/or confidential information, or were overbroad and burdensome” and affirming the motion court’s denial of the plaintiff's motion to compel and granting the defendants' cross-motion for a protective order); Harris v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 663 (2d Dept. 1995) (affirming the lower court’s order which struck document demands that were “overly broad and burdensome nature” and of “questionable FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 05/30/2023 11:32 PM INDEX NO. 900082/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 58 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/30/2023 Hillary Nappi, Esq. February 21, 2023 Page 2 relevance”). Specifically regarding Request No. 53, to which YOSS objected including on the ground that it is in the form of an interrogatory and precluded pursuant to CPLR § 3130, you entirely fail to respond to such objection or state why it is proper. The same is true regarding Plaintiff’s Notice for Discovery and Inspection of Directories and Corporate Records and Plaintiff’s demand for Surveillance Materials. Contrary to your contention, an objection on the grounds of relevance — i.e., that the request seeks documents that are not “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of [this] action — is proper. See CPLR 3101(a). Moreover, YOSS’ objection to these demands were based, not only on relevance, but also on the overbreadth of the demands, which are not tailored to the facts or claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action. For example, Plaintiff seeks “Copies of all rosters, employee lists, yearbooks, directories, bulletins and similar documents that reflect the name of each person who, at any time along with the alleged abuser(s), worked at, volunteered at, or was employed by any Defendant” and “Copies of all articles of incorporation, bylaws, operating agreements, and similar documents regarding any current or prior corporation or other legal entity that owned any Defendant. Such demands are patently overbroad and not narrowly tailored to the facts and claims of this action. Plaintiff also cannot avoid the fact that in his responses to YOSS’ First Request for Production of Documents and Things and Combined Discovery Demands, which were more narrowly crafted and tailored to the specific facts and timeframe of the allegations in this case, Plaintiff frequently objected to many of the requests and demands, including that “Plaintiff has not completed (1) investigation of the facts relating to this case; (2) discovery in this action; or (3) preparation for trial” and that the requests were “vague, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence.” To the extent that you maintain such objections are improper, we reserve the right to demand supplemental responses from Plaintiff. Nevertheless, in order to avoid unnecessary disputes, YOSS hereby supplements its responses to the foregoing requests and demands, by adding the following: Subject to and without waiving any of YOSS’ general or specific objections, set forth in YOSS’ respective response, YOSS will produce documents concerning the hierarchical structure of YOSS, school records concerning Yechezkel Lifshitz or any allegations of abuse by Yechezkel Lifshitz, written school manuals or policies concerning allegations of sexual abuse, any written statements by Plaintiff, any photographs of Plaintiff including in yearbooks, and any surveillance material concerning the Plaintiff in its possession, if any, after completion of a reasonable search. Very truly yours, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP /s/ Karen Bitar Karen Bitar