Legal Document: Freedman Robert Vs Blickman Industries, Llc

On June 17, 2022 a MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY submitted by COHEN, HARLAN, LEIGH of DUNN LAMBERT, LLC on behalf of ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN, PF & RF ENTERPRISES,INC., against BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES,LLC, ANTHONY LORENZO *LINKED FILING* was filed involving a dispute between Paul Freedman, Pf & Rf Enterprises,Inc.,, Robert Freedman, and Anthony Lorenzo, Blickman Industries,Llc, for Contract/Commercial Transaction in the District Court of Bergen County.

Preview
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

HARLAN L. COHEN, ESQ.,
NJ Attorney ID #025841984
PETER E; LEMBESIS, ESQ.,
NJ Attorney ID 4031952006
DUNN LAMBERT, L.L.C.
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3D
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: (201) 291-3811
Fax: (201) 291-0140
HCohen@NJBizlawyer.com
PLembesis@NJBizlawyer.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN BERGEN COUNTY
and PF & RF ENTERPRISES, INC., f/k/a DOCKET NO,: BER-L-003342-22
BLICKMAN, INC.,
Civil Action
Plaintiffs,
VS. NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC and PURSUANT TO R. 4:23-5(e)
ANTHONY LORENZO,
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Defendants.

TO: R.N. TENDAI RICHARDS, ESQ.
Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C.
Court Plaza South — East Wing
21 Main Street, Suite 101
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
trichards@winnebanta.com
Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimants Blickman Industries, LLC and
Anthony Lorenzo

COUNSEL:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, Robert

Freedman, Paul Freedman and PF& RF Enterprises, Inc., f/k/a Blickman, Inc. (together,
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

the “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Dunn Lambert, L.L.C., shall move before

the Hon. Mary F. Thurber, J.S.C., at the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,

Bergen County, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, New Jersey, via Zoom unless otherwise

directed by the Court, on October 20, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel

may be heard, for the entry of an Order granting the following, relief: (i) pursuant to R.

4:23-5(c), compelling the Defendants, Blickman Industries, LLC and Anthony Lorenzo, to

produce the requested tax returns and financial statements of Defendant, Blickman

Industries, LLC, by October 27, 2023; and (ii) for such other and further relief as the Court

deems just, equitable and proper.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of their motion, the

Plaintiffs shall rely upon the accompanying certification of Harlan L. Cohen, Esq. A

proposed form of Order is enclosed.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Plaintiffs request oral argument

in the event that timely opposition is filed and served.

DUNN LAMBERT, L.L.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants
Robert Freedman, Paul Freedman and
PF& RF Enterprises, Inc., f/k/a Blickman, Inc.

By:/s Haxtan £ Cohen
HARLAN L. COHEN

Dated: October 4, 2023

-2-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

HARLAN L. COHEN, ESQ.,
NJ Attorney ID #025841984
PETER E. LEMBESIS, ESQ.,
NJ Attorney ID #031952006
DUNN LAMBERT, L.L.C.
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3D
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: (201) 291-3811
Fax: (201) 291-0140
HCohen@NJBizlawyer.com
PLembesis@NJBizlawyer.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN BERGEN COUNTY
and PF & RF ENTERPRISES, INC., f/k/a DOCKET NO.: BER-L-003342-22
BLICKMAN, INC.,
Civil Action
Plaintiffs,
vs. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC and DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO R. 4:23-
ANTHONY LORENZO, 5(c)
Defendants.

THIS MATTER HAVING BEEN OPENED TO THE COURT by Dunn

Lambert, L.L.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants (together, the

“Plaintiffs”), seeking the entry of an Order pursuant to R. 4:23-5(c), to compel Defendant

Blickman Industries, LLC to produce financial documents; and Winne, Banta, Basralian &

Kahn, P.C., attorneys for Defendants Blickman Industries, LLC and Anthony Lorenzo

(together, the “Defendants”), having opposed the motion; and the Court having reviewed
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

the parties’ moving and opposing papers, and having heard the oral argument of counsel

on October , 2023; and for good cause shown;

IT IS ON THIS DAY OF , 2023
ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1 The Plaintiffs’ motion, pursuant to R. 4:23-5(c), to compel

Defendant Blickman Industries, LLC to produce the financial documents requested in

Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests (Document Requests Nos. 4-6), be and the same

is hereby granted.

2. The Defendants shall produce the financial documents requested in

Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests (Document Requests Nos. 4-6) by no later than

, 2023.

Hon. Mary F. Thurber, J.S.C

Motion was:

Opposed

Unopposed

Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were:

Oral and placed on the Record on , 2023

Written by decision dated , 2023

-2-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pglof28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

HARLAN L. COHEN, ESQ.,
NJ Attorney ID #02584 1984
PETER E, LEMBESIS, ESQ.,
NJ Attorney ID #031952006
DUNN LAMBERT, L.L.C.
15 East Midland Avenue, Suite 3D
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: (201) 291-3811
Fax: (201) 291-0140
HCohen@NJBizlawyer.com
PLembesis@NJBizlawyer.com
Attomeys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN BERGEN COUNTY
and PF & RF ENTERPRISES, INC., fik/a DOCKET NO.: BER-L-003342-22
BLICKMAN, INC.,
Civil Action
Plaintiffs,
VS. CERTIFICATION OF HARLAN L,
COHEN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF
BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC and PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
ANTHONY LORENZO, PRODUCTION OF FINANCIAL
DOCUMENTS PURSUANT
Defendants. TO: R. 4:23-5(c)

HARLAN L. COHEN, of full age, hereby certifies as follows:

1 1 am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and a member of Dunn

Lambert, L.L.C., the attorneys in connection with the above-captioned matter for the

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, Robert Freedman, Paul Freedman and PF& RF

Enterprises, Inc., f/k/a Blickman, Inc. (together, the “Plaintiffs”).
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg2of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

2. I have been responsible for this matter on behalf of the Plaintiffs since its

inception, as well as in prior related litigation between the parties in both New Jersey and

New York, and as such, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein.

3 J am authorized by the Plaintiffs to submit this certification on their behalf

which seeks, pursuant to R. 4:23-5(c), to compel the production of financial documents ,

specifically tax returns and financial statements, of the Defendant, Blickman Industries,

LLC (“Industries”).

4 The case arises out of the December 21, 2017 sale of substantially all of the

assets of Blickman to Industries under the terms of an Asset Purchase Agreement (the

“APA”) and related documents,

5 The sale was for $5 million, of which $750,000 was supposed to be paid by

Industries pursuant to the terms of a promissory note (the “Promissory Note”). To date, no

payments have been made by Industries. Payment by Blickman under the Promissory Note

is personally guaranteed by Defendant Anthony Lorenzo (“Lorenzo”), the principal of

Industries, under the terms of Guaranty (the “Guaranty”).

6 As part of the transaction, the two principals of Blickman were to be

employed by or serve as a consultant to Industries. Less than a year after the transaction

closed, Industries wrongfully terminated the two principals of Blickman, which ultimately

resulted in this lawsuit. (See Amended Complaint at {1-58 for the background facts and

Counts One through Four, and Seven, of the Complaint.) Industries also breached certain

provisions of the APA as well as its indemnification obligations to Blickman. (See

Complaint at Counts Five and Six),

-2-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg3o0f28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

7 Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 17, 2022 by filing their

Complaint.

8 Industries and Anthony Lorenzo (“Lorenzo”), a third-party Plaintiff at the

time and now a Defendant ! (Industries and Lorenzo are referred to together as the

“Defendants” filed their Answer and Counterclaim to the Complaint on July 18, 2022.

9 On October 21, 2022, the Defendants stated in their Response to

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Demand for Statement of Damages that the

Defendants’ “damages are in excess of two million dollars with said amounts to be

supplemented as discovery progresses.” A copy of the Defendants’ Response to the

Plaintiffs’ Demand for Statement of Damages is attached as Exhibit A.

10. By letter dated December 29, 2022, Plaintiffs served the following

discovery requests upon counsel for the Defendants, R. N. Tendai Richards, Esq. of the

law firm of Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C.: (a) Plaintiffs’ Initial Interrogatories;

and (b) Plaintiffs’ Request for the Production of Documents (“Plaintiffs’ Document

Request”),

it. In Request No. 4 of Plaintiffs’ Document Request, Plaintiffs requested the

production of:

Any and all federal and state income tax returns, including all schedules,
statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work papers,
generated and/or produced, prepared for or on behalf of Industries from
January 1, 2017 through the present.

12. In Request No. 5 of Plaintiffs’ Document Request, Plaintiffs requested the

production of:

! The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on September 29, 2023.

-3-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg4of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

Any and all internally generated financial statements, including all
schedules, statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work
papers, prepared, by for or on behalf of Industries from January 1, 2017
through the present.

13, In Request No. 6 of Plaintiffs’ Document Request, ? Plaintiffs requested the

production of:

Any and all externally generated financial statements, including all
schedules, statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work
papers, prepared, by for or on behalf of Industries from January 1, 2017
through the present.

14. The Defendants’ response to the Plaintiffs’ Document Request was due by

February 13, 2023. Defendants, however, also failed to provide timely responses to same.

15. The Defendants’ answers to the Plaintiffs’ Initial Interrogatories were due

by March 8, 2023. Defendants, however, failed to provide timely answers fo same.

16. By letter dated March 9, 2023, I notified the Defendants’ counsel, Mr.

Richards, that the Defendants’ response to both the Plaintiffs’ Request for the Production

of Documents and their response to the Plaintiffs’ Initial Interrogatories were overdue and

that the Defendants were in default with respect to both discovery requests.

17. My March 9, 2023 letter further notified the Defendants’ counsel that if:

we do not receive full and complete responses to both the outstanding
Request for the Production of Documents and the outstanding Interrogatory
Answers by Thursday, March 16, 2023, your clients’ continued non-
compliance with its discovery obligations will result in an appropriate
motion being made, in accordance with R, 1:6-2(c) and &. 4:23-S(a), without
further attempt to resolve this matter.

2 Requests Nos. 4-6 are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs’ Financial
Document Requests.” A copy of Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests is attached as
Exhibit B.

-4.
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg5of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

18. Notwithstanding my March 9, 2023 letter to Mr. Richards, the Defendants

did not provide responses to either of the Plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests by

March 16, 2023.

19. As a result, on March 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss

Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim without Prejudice pursuant to X. 4:23-5(a)(1). The

return date of the Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss was April 14, 2023 and the motion was

subsequently adjourned to April 28, 2023.

20. On March 21, 2023, while the Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss was pending,

the Defendants served their Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Demand for the Production of

Documents, dated March 21, 2023 and an electronic link to the Defendants’ actual

document production, * Inasmuch as the instant motion to compel only concerns the

Defendants’ response to the Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests, it is only those

written responses of the Defendants (the “Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Financial

Document Requests”) which are being furnished to Court as Exhibit C hereto.

21. The Defendants’ identical Response to all three of Plaintiffs’ Financial

Document Requests (Requests Nos. 4 -6), which seek the production of Industries’ federal

and state tax returns, Industries’ internally generated financial statements and Industries’

externally generated financial statements, states:

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, and
unduly burdensome and Plaintiffs have not shown the request is relevant to
the case, that the Plaintiffs have a compelling need for the documents
requested, or that the disclosure serves a substantial purpose.

3 The Defendants did not serve their Interrogatory Answers until April 3, 2023, and the
Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their Motion to Dismiss on April 19, 2023.

-5-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg6of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

22. On July 13, 2023, the Court entered a Consent Case Management Order

which extended the discovery end date to December 22, 2023. The Consent Order

provided, in relevant part, that the “identity and qualifications of all affirmative expert

witnesses, if any, shall be exchanged by September 28, 2023” (43)' and that “[ajll

affirmative expert reports, if any, shall be exchanged by the parties by October 27, 2023”

(43), and that “[a]ll rebuttal expert reports, if any, shall be exchanged by the parties by

November 34, 2023 (94), with expert depositions to be concluded by December 22, 2023

(46). A copy of the July 13, 2023 Consent Case Management Order is attached as Exhibit

Di.

23. On September 14, 2023, I sent the Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Richards, a

lengthy letter of over 60 pages, detailing the deficiencies in the Defendants’ discovery

responses, including with respect to the Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests, and

requesting that the deficiencies be corrected by September 22, 2023. 5 My September 14,

2023 letter further advised that the Defendants’ continued non-compliance with their

discovery obligations would result in an appropriate motion being made in accordance with

R. 1:6-2(c) and R, 4:23-5(a), without further attempt to resolve this matter.

24, With respect to the Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Financial Document

Requests, my September 14, 2023 letter stated as follows:

Response to Request No. 4

This document request seeks “all federal and state income tax returns, including all
schedules, statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work papers,

4
Both sides identified financial experts in their respective disclosures on September 28,
2023.

5 That date was subsequently extended on consent to September 29, 2023.
Notwithstanding that consensual extension, Defendants’ counsel did not furnish his
response until the end of the day on October 3, 2023.

-6-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg7of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

generated and/or produced, prepared for or on behalf of Industries from January 1,
2017 through the present.” The Defendants have objected on grounds that the
Plaintiffs have not shown the request is relevant, that Plaintiffs have a compelling
need for the documents requested, or that the disclosure serves a substantial
purpose.”

The Defendants’ pro forma objections are baseless. The financial documents
requested, none of which have been produced, are directly relevant to the issue of
analyzing and refuting the Defendants’ alleged damages, which according to the
Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ Demand for a Statement of Damages, “are in
excess of two million dollars.” The Plaintiffs have no other way to readily obtain
the financial information contained therein from other sources so they, and any
damages experts they retain, can examine the basis of the Defendants’ claim of
purported damages. This is especially the case since the Defendants have to date,
failed to produce any of the financial documents requested by the Plaintiffs. (See
Nos. 5 and 6 below.) © Such records are certainly reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. For the same reasons, the Plaintiffs clearly
have a compelling need for the production of such financial documents, and that
their immediate disclosure serves a substantial purpose. In the event that the
Defendants fail to produce all such requested financial documentation, Plaintiffs
reserve the right to seek to bar the Defendants from introducing into evidence any
testimony or documents in support of their claims for damages. These documents
must be immediately produced.

25, On October 3, 2023, the Defendants’ counsel sent a 27 page response to my

discovery deficiency letter of September 14, 2023, which I did not have a chance to review

until the moming of October 4, 2023. Due to the length of the Defendants’ response,

however, I have not yet had time to review it in depth.

26. In the limited time available to file a motion by the October 4, 2023 deadline

in order to have an October 20, 2023 return date, I did, however, focus on the Defendants’

response to Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests, which appears at page 22 of the

Defendants’ counsel’s letter under the heading “Requests #4-6.” The Defendants’

counsel’s response to “Requests #4-6” states as follows:

& Those requests seeks the production of Industries’ internally and externally generated
financial statements. The September 14, 2023 letter states that Plaintiffs’ response to
Request No. 4 also applies to Requests Nos. 5 & 6.

-7-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg 8of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

Blickman Industries amends its prior response to object to these Requests as
improper. “Tax returns are declared confidential by both federal and New
Jersey statutes. Disclosure of tax returns and associated tax filings is
permitted only in limited circumstances in the absence of waiver or consent,
Parkinson v. Diamond Chemical Company, Inc., 469 N.J. Super. 396, 399
(App. Div. 2021). Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing required by
Ullmann v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 87 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1965),
namely: “(1) the records are likely to contain information relevant to the
claims or defenses in the case; (2) the requestor has a ‘compelling need’ for
the records to obtain information that cannot be obtained readily from other
sources; and (3) disclosure of the records will serve a ‘substantial purpose. a9
Parkinson, 469 N.J. Super. at 408.

“T]he language of the confidentiality provisions within the Internal Revenue
Code and New Jersey’s tax statutes makes no distinction between the tax
returns of business from those of individual taxpayers.” Jd. at 409. As such,
prior to receipt of any tax records, Plaintiffs must meet “the Ullmann standard
of heightened good cause.” Jd. at 411. Plaintiffs’ generic demands for
Blickman Industries’ tax records, which merely track the Ullmann language
without supplying any facts constituting “heightened good cause,” do not
meet the standard.

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ request for financial “statements, including all underlying
schedules, statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work
paper”... from January 1, 2017 through the present,” is both vague and
overbroad. These Requests are not narrowly tailored to specific issues; rather,
they are intended to give Plaintiffs - persons herein accused of fraud and
breaches of duty — unfettered access to Blickman Industries’ confidential
financial information. Such overbroad Requests are not intended to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. They are merely intended to harass, annoy,
and embarrass Blickman Industries.

27. The Defendants’ newly amended objections to the Plaintiffs’ Financial

Document Requests are without basis and part of the Defendants’ pattern of refusing to

comply in good faith with their discovery obligations.

28. While the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have not met the “heightened

good cause” standard with respect to the production of the Defendants’ requested financial

records, including tax returns, that is clearly not the case.

29, As Plaintiff have previously stated, the financial documents requested, none

of which have been produced, are directly relevant to the issue of analyzing and refuting

-8-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg9of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

the Defendants’ alleged damages, which according to the Defendants’ response to

Plaintiffs’ Demand for a Statement of Damages, “are in excess of two million dollars,”

The Plaintiffs have no other way to readily obtain the financial information contained

therein from other sources so they, and any damages experts they retain, can examine the

basis of the Defendants’ claim of purported damages.

30. The Defendants’ contention that the requests for financial statements and

the underlying work papers, is vague and overbroad is without basis. The subject sale took

place in 2017 and the Defendants are claiming that they have incurred damages in excess

of over $2 million since the sale occurred. Such requests are neither vague nor overbroad.

31. The Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests are precisely the types of

requests typically used by financial experts in determining financial gains and alleged

losses. Plaintiffs’ financial experts, and thus the Plaintiffs, will be at a severe, unfair and

prejudicial disadvantage, if the Defendants’ financial expert, who presumably has full and

unfettered access to Industries tax returns and financial statements, prepares a report based

in whole or in part on such financial records which the Plaintiffs and their financial expert

have not been permitted to see and access.

32. Notably, if the Defendants are so concerned about the confidentiality of

their financial records, they could have and should have requested the entry of a

confidentiality or protective Order, either on consent or by motion. Tellingly, they have

never done so during the entirety of this case.

33. Instead, they have opted to stonewall the Plaintiffs with respect to

responding to the Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests.

-9-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg10of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

34. Plaintiffs are not delinquent in any discovery obligation owed to the

Defendants. 7

35, The current discovery end date for this matter is December 22, 2023. No

arbitration date or trial date has been scheduled.

36. Based upon the Defendants’ ongoing failure to comply with their discovery

obligations concerning the Plaintiffs’ Financial Document Requests, Plaintiffs respectfully

7 Although on the last page of the Defendants’ counsel’s October 3, 2023 letter he stated
that he “would be remiss if I did not remind you that I sent a discovery deficiency letter,
requesting amended responses from Plaintiffs, on July 10, 2023,” and requesting my
prompt response to same, Mr. Richards is mistaken in claiming that I have not responded
to his July 11, 2023 (not July 10) discovery deficiency letter. In fact, on August 9, 2023, 1
sent hima detailed 14 page letter in response to his July 10, 2023 letter. Defendants’
counsel seems to have forgotten that he has had my letter in hand for nearly two months.

-10-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg1lof28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

request that their motion to compel the production of Industries’ financial documents be

granted,

Thereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. | am aware that

if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to

punishment.

0/ Harlan
£. Cohen
Harlan L. Cohen
Dated: October 4, 2023

-li-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg12of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

EXHIBIT A
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg13of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

R.N. Tendai Richards, Esq.
NJ Attorney ID No, 01794-1995
WINNE, BANTA, BASRALIAN & KARN, P.C.
Court Plaza South - East Wing
21 Main Street, Suite 101
Hackensack, New Jersey 07602
(201) 487-3800
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant
Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
And PF & RF ENTERPRISES, INC., fik/a DOCKET NO.: BER-L-003342-22
BLICKMAN, INC,
Civil Action
Plaintiffs, Counterclaim Defendants,
RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT/
y, COUNTERCLAIMANTS TO
PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM
BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC. DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
Defendant and Counterclaimants.

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Blickman Industries, LLC and Anthony Lorenzo

hereby respond to Piaintiffs’/Counterclaim Defendants’ Demand for Statement of Damages by

stating that their damages are in excess of two million dollars, with said amount to be supplemented

as discovery progresses.

WINNE, BANTA, BASRALIAN & KAHN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimants

ye <_
R.N. Tendai Richards

Dated: October 21, 2022

#72774]vi * 10517-00008
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg14of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

EXHIBIT B
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg15of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

HARLAN L. COHEN, ESQ.,
NJ Attorney ID #025841984
PETER E. LEMBESIS, ESQ.,
NJ Attorney ID #031952006
DUNN LAMBERT, L.L.C.
The Atrium
East 80 Route 4
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: (201) 291-0700
Fax: (201) 291-0140
HCohen@NJBizlawyer.com
PLembesis@NJBizlawyer.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN : BERGEN COUNTY
and PF & RF ENTERPRISES, INC., t/k/a DOCKET NO.: BER-L-003342-22
BLICKMAN, INC.,
Civil Action
Plaintiffs,
VS. PLAINTIFFS/COUNTERCLAIM
DEFENDANTS FIRST REQUEST FOR
BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC, THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Defendant.

TO: R.N. TENDAI RICHARDS, ESQ.
Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C.
Court Plaza South — East Wing
21 Main Street, Suite 101
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
trichards@winnebanta,com
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant, Blickman Industries, LLC,
And Defendant/ Counterclaimant Anthony Lorenzo

COUNSEL:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to Plaintiffs/Counterclaim

Defendants, ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN and PF & RF ENTERPRISES,
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg16of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

ING., f/k/a BLICKMAN, INC., by and through their attorneys, Dunn Lambert, L.L.C.,

hereby demand that Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES, INC.,

and Defendant/Counterclaimant, ANTHONY LORENZO, each furnish responses and

documents to the following request for the Production of Documents pursuant to R. 4:18

of the New Jersey Rules of Court, any case management or discovery consent orders which

have been or are entered in the within action, and any instructions and definition which

follow.

DUNN LAMBERT, L.L.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterclaim
Defendants Robert Freedman, Paul
Freedman, and PF & RF
Enterprises, Inc. f/k/a Blickman, Inc.

By: Harlan
£L. Cohen
Harlan L. Cohen

DATED: December 29, 2022

-2-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg17of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

INSTRUCTIONS

The following instructions apply to each of the present requests.

1 Pursuant to R, 4:18-1 of the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey,

you are to produce for inspection and/or copying any and all documents (as that term is

hereinafter defined) within your possession, custody or control, which evidence, refer, or

relate in any way to the subject matter of this litigation or as otherwise stated, including,

but not limited to, those documents fisted below.

2. Each production request shall be deemed to call for the production of the original

document or documents, to the extent that they are in or subject to, directly or indirectly,

your control or the control of your agent. In addition, each request includes all preliminary

drafts of document(s) which differ either in any respect from the original or final draft or

from each other (e.g., by reason of handwritten notes or comments having been added to

one copy of the document but not on the original or other copies). Furthermore, each and

every non-identical copy of a document (whether different from the original because of

stamps, indications of receipt, handwritten notes, marks, attachment to different

documents, or any other reason) is a separate document to be produced.

3 In producing documents, all documents which are physically attached to each other

in files shall be made available in that form regardless of whether the attached documents

are otherwise requested herein. Documents which are segregated or separated from other

documents, whether by inclusion in binders, files, sub-files, or by use of dividers, or any

other method, shall be made available in that form.

4, Each request herein for a document or documents contemplates production of the

document in its entirety without abbreviation or expurgation.

-3-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg18of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

5. As to those requests consisting of a number
of separate subdivisions, or related parts

or portions, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs are required to provide a complete

response to each such part or portion with the same effect as if they were propounded as

separate requests. In the event you interpose an objection to a request, it should clearly

indicate to which part or portion of the request it is directed.

6. If, in answering any of these requests, you claim any ambiguity or vagueness in

interpreting either the request or a definition or instruction applicable thereto, such claim

shall not be utilized as a basis for refusing to respond, but instead, you shall respond and

set forth as part of your response the language deemed to be ambiguous and the

interpretation chosen or used in responding to the request.

7 If one or more ofthese requests cannot be answered in full, then you must answer

to the extent possible, and state the reason for your inability to provide a complete response.

To the extent that a response has not been provided because the information required to

respond is not currently available to you, you shail provide a response at such time as the

information necessary to provide a response becomes available (pursuant to your duty to

supplement these responses, as outlined below).

8. Unless otherwise indicated, the discovery period of this document production

request is the period commencing on January 1, 2017 and continuing to the present.

9, You are instructed to produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of

business without disrupting the integrity of individual files or groups of documents, or to

organize and identify all documents produced according to the numbered request contained

herein.

-4-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg19of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

10. If this request requires the production of documents which, while known to you,

are not in your possession or control, you should identify each such document by assigning

to it a number and for each such numbered document, identify its current location and

custodian, or if not known, its last known location and custodian.

11. You are requested to list any and all documents withheld from production and to

specify the grounds or reasons for withholding any documents.

12. Pursuant to R, 4:10-2(c), to the extent that you claim that any document

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants have requested is privileged and, therefore, beyond the

scope of discovery, you must, for each such document, provide the following information:

(i) the nature and basis of the privilege; (ii) the type of document, e.g., letter or

memorandum; (iii) the general subject matter of the document; (iv) the date of the

document; and (v) such other information as is sufficient to identify the document for a

subpoena duces tecum, including, where appropriate, the author(s) or preparer(s) of the

document, the addressee(s) of the document, and any other recipients of or shown in

document, number of pages, whether it contained attachments or appendices, and the

subject matter of such attachments or appendices, its present custodian, and where not

apparent, the relationship of the author(s)/preparer(s), addressee(s), and recipient(s) to each

other.

13. If any documents within the scope of this request have been destroyed, lost,

transferred to others or otherwise disposed of, you are requested to provide a list containing

the following information for each of said documents: a description of the document and

its contents, number of pages, and whether it contained attachments or appendices, and a

description of such attachments or appendices; the date the document was prepared; the

-5-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg 20 of 28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

name(s), employment position(s), and address(es) of the author(s) and/or preparer(s) of the

document; the recipient(s) and location of all copies of the document; the date the

document was destroyed, lost, transferred to others or otherwise disposed of; the name of

the person authorizing destruction or having responsibility for the loss of the document or

its transfer to others; if the document was destroyed, the manner of and reason for its

destruction; and the number of the request under which the document would otherwise be

produced,

14, {f any information or data is withheld because such information or data is stored

only electronically, it is to be identified by its subject matter, storage mode, and place(s)

where it is maintained.

15. These requests are continuing in nature. To the extent that your responses may be

enlarged, diminished or otherwise modified by information acquired subsequent to your

initial responses hereto, you are required to promptly furnish supplemental responses

reflecting such changes.

16. All requests shall be deemed to apply to the extent that you have not previously

produced the requested documents.

-6-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg21of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

DEFINITIONS

The Definitions used in Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants are adopted by

referenced herein.

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

Any and all documents previously requested by the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim

Defendants but not produced to date by the Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

Any and all documents requested in the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Initial

Interrogatories but not produced to date by the Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

Any and all documents which the Counterclaim Plaintiffs contend support their

Answers to the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Interrogatories.

Any and all federal and state income tax returns, including all schedules, statements,

exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work papers, generated and/or

produced, prepared for or on behalfof Industries from January 1, 2017 through the

present.

Any and all internally generated financial statements, including all schedules,

statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work papers, prepared,

by for or on behalf of Industries from January 1, 2017 through the present.

Any and all externally generated financial statements, including all schedules,

statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work papers, prepared,

by for or on behalf of Industries from January 1, 2017 through the present.

Any and all documents and communications, including ESI, exchanged between (a)

Industries and (b) Lorenzo on the one hand, and (c) M&T Bank on the other hand,

-7-
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg 22 of 28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

EXHIBIT C
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg 23 of 28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

R.N. Tendai Richards (01794-1995)
WINNE, BANTA, BASRALIAN & KAHN, P.C
Court Plaza South — East Wing
21 Main Street, Suite 101
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
(201) 487-3800
Attorneys for Defendant

ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
and PF & ENTERPRISES, INC., f/k/a LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
BLICKMAN, INC, DOCKET NO.: BER-L-003342-22

Plaintiffs, Civil Action
vy,
DEFENDANT’S REPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST DEMAND FOR
BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC,
THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant.

(Via FedEx)
TO: Harlan L. Cohen, Esq.
DUNN LAMBERT, L.L.C.
The Atrium
East 80 Route 4
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

COUNSEL:

Defendant BLICKMAN INDUSTRIES, LLC (“Defendant” or “Industries”) responds to
Plaintiffs ROBERT FREEDMAN, PAUL FREEDMAN and PF & ENTERPRISES, INC., t/k/a
BLICKMAN, INC. (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) First Request for the Production of Documents
as follows:
RESPONSES

1 Any and all documents previously requested by the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim
Defendants but not produced to date by the Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

Response: Defendant's production herein mirrors that which was previously supplied to
Plaintiffs, but Defendant reserves the right to supplement this production should
additional responsive materials be identified.

#778704v1 * 10517-00001
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg 24 of 28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

2 Any and all documents requested in Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Initial
Interrogatories but not produced to date by the Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

Response: Defendant’s production herein mirrors that which was previously supplied to
Plaintiffs, but Defendant reserves the right to supplement this production should
additional responsive materials be identified.

3 Any and all documents which the Counterclaim Plaintiffs contend support their
Answers to the Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants’ Interrogatories.

Response: The Defendant relies on its production herein that is categorized in support of
the Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ contentions.

4, Any and all federal and state income tax returns, including all schedules,
statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work papers, generated and/or
produced, prepared for or on behalf of Industries from January 1, 2017 through the
present.

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
and unduly burdensome and Plaintiffs have not shown the request is relevant to the case,
that the Plaintiffs have a compelling need for the documents requested, or that the
disclosure serves a substantial purpose.

5 Any and all internally generated financial statements, including all
schedules, statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work
papers, prepared, by for or on behalf of Industries from January 1, 2017 through
the present.

6 Any and all externally generated financial statements, including all
schedules, statements, exhibits and attachments, as well as underlying work
papers, prepared, by for or on behalf of Industries from January 1, 2017 through
the present.

Response: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, and
unduly burdensome and Plaintiffs have not shown the request is relevant to the case, that
the Plaintiffs have a compelling need for the documents requested, that the disclosure
serves a substantial purpose.

7 Any and all documents, including ESI, exchanged between (a) Industries and (b)
Lorenzo on the one hand, and (c) M&T Bank on the other hand, with respect to the (i)
2

#7787041 * 10517-00001
BER-L-003342-22 10/04/2023 5:36:48 PM Pg 25of28 Trans ID: LCV20233045587

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that I have reviewed the document production request and that I have

made or caused to be made a good faith search for documents responsive to the request. I further

certify that as of

Case Info

Judge

Mary F Thurber Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 04, 2023

Case Filing Date

June 17, 2022

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Freedman Robert Vs Blickman Industries, Llc

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties