Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023
Exhibit F
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023
August 30, 2022
By Email
Robert S. Rosman, Esq.
Rosman Legal, P.C.
7-11 South Broadway, Suite 308
White Plains, NY 10601
rob@rosmanlegal.com
Re: Neil B. Rice v. Lee R. Einsidler, Index No. 61665/2021
Dear Mr. Rosman:
We write on behalf of defendant Lee R. Einsidler, as administrator of the Estate of Aaron
Michael Einsidler (“Defendant”), in the above-captioned action. The below summarizes key
points of our August 26, 2022 telephonic meet-and-confer on (i) Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatory Response”); (ii) Plaintiff’s Response
to Defendant’s First Request for the Production of Documents and Things (the “Response to
Defendant’s Document Requests” or “Response”); and (iii) Plaintiff’s Verified Bill of
Particulars, served in response to Defendant’s Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars (“BOP
Demand”). Please let me know if you disagree with anything stated below, or if you believe I
omitted anything material.
Medical Authorizations
During our call, I asked whether Plaintiff would be providing updated authorizations for
the release of his medical, mental health, and drug and alcohol treatment records, in accordance
with the Court’s August 19, 2022 order on Defendant’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 66). You
indicated that you intend to do so. As a reminder, the Court’s order requires Plaintiff to provide
such authorizations to Defendant no later than September 8, 2022. We look forward to receiving
them promptly.
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Response
On May 18, 2022, we served Plaintiff (through your firm) with Defendant’s First Set of
Interrogatories to Plaintiff (“Interrogatories”), consisting of seven interrogatories. On June 24,
2022—17 days after the deadline for responding to interrogatories under CPLR 3133 1—Plaintiff
served his Interrogatory Response, which stated simply that “the Preliminary Conference
Stipulation (NYSCEF Doc. No. 33), ‘so ordered’ by the Honorable Damaris Torrent on March
1
By failing to timely respond to the Interrogatories, Plaintiff has waived any objections thereto. See, e.g., Cooper v.
Drobenko Bros. Realty, 200 A.D.2d 415, 415 (1st Dep’t 1994).
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023
August 30, 2022
Page 2 of 5
Robert S. Rosman, Esq.
28, 2022, does not provide or offer the opportunity to submit or respond to interrogatories. The
Parties failed to stipulate to interrogatories at the court conference of March 25, 2022.”
During our call, I asked whether Plaintiff was standing on his Interrogatory Response. I
pointed out that Defendant’s Interrogatories were basic interrogatories seeking, inter alia,
identification of potential witnesses, persons with knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint,
and certain documents relied upon by Plaintiff. In response, you stated that Plaintiff did not need
to respond to the Interrogatories because there are going to be depositions in the case, and that
Plaintiff would therefore not be further responding to the Interrogatories.
As I noted on our call, Plaintiff’s position is squarely at odds with the CPLR—which
contemplates both interrogatories and depositions as available disclosure tools and nowhere
prohibits one upon use of the other—as well as with basic disclosure practice in the State of New
York. The parties are plainly at an impasse on this issue. Defendant reserves all rights with
respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Interrogatories.
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Document Requests
On May 18, 2022, we served Plaintiff (through your firm) with Defendant’s First Request
for the Production of Documents and Things (“Document Requests”), consisting of nine
document requests. On June 24, 2022—7 days after the deadline for responding to document
requests under the so-ordered Preliminary Conference Stipulation (Doc. No. 33)—Plaintiff
served his Response to Defendant’s Document Requests. 2 The Response stated that Plaintiff
would be providing documents responsive to only two of the nine requests—specifically,
Request Nos. 2 and 6. As to the remainder, the Response stated various objections without
stating that Plaintiff would produce any responsive documents. To date, Plaintiff has not
produced a single document to Defendant.
During our call, I indicated that I interpreted Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 1—
which seeks all documents and communications concerning any meeting or communication
between or among Plaintiff and Aaron Einsidler and/or Sara Einsidler—as a refusal to produce
responsive documents, and I asked you multiple times to confirm that that was the case. You
refused to answer my question directly, but you stated that you “stand by” your response. You
indicated that the Request was “overbroad and burdensome” given that there were “hundreds” of
meetings between Plaintiff and Aaron and/or Sara, although you failed to articulate what the
burden would entail.
As I explained during our call, the documents sought by Request No. 1 are highly
relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, given that he is alleging “continuous and ongoing” harassment by
Aaron and Sara (Compl. ¶ 10) and an assault by both of them in November 2019. Incredibly,
more than three months after service of Defendant’s Document Requests, Plaintiff has failed to
produce a single text message, email, or other communication between Plaintiff and Aaron
2
By failing to timely respond to the Document Requests, Plaintiff has waived his objections. See, e.g., Watson v.
City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 510, 525 (1st Dep’t 2018).
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023
August 30, 2022
Page 3 of 5
Robert S. Rosman, Esq.
and/or Sara, notwithstanding that Plaintiff asserts claims based on an alleged long-term
harassment and an assault by Aaron and Sara. Nor have you remotely supported your conclusory
assertion of “burden.” Indeed, there appears to be no reason that Plaintiff cannot produce all his
text messages, emails, and other communications with Aaron and/or Sara.
You further indicated that you are not going to change your responses to any of
Defendant’s document requests, and that you would not entertain possible compromises during
the meet-and-confer process unless they are set forth in revised document requests. I indicated
that your position is unreasonable and inconsistent with the purpose and practice of meet-and-
confers, and that there is no reason to withdraw Defendant’s entirely valid document requests.
As a result, we did not discuss the remainder of Defendant’s document requests as to which
Plaintiff is refusing to produce responsive documents (Request Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9), given
that the parties appear to be at an impasse on those Requests.
I noted that there were two Requests—Request Nos. 2 and 6—as to which Plaintiff’s
Response had indicated that he would produce responsive documents, but for which no
production had been made. As to Request No. 2—seeking all documents and communications
concerning any physical and/or mental injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of his
interactions with Aaron and/or Sara—you stated that these materials were “part and parcel” of
the medical records that would be produced by Plaintiff’s medical providers pursuant to the
forthcoming medical authorizations in accordance with the Court’s August 19, 2022 order. I
noted that Request No. 2 requests production of documents concerning Plaintiff’s physical
and/or mental injuries in his possession, custody, or control (not that of his medical providers),
and that Defendant is entitled to this highly probative evidence to assess the nature, cause, and
scope, if any, of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. As I noted, Plaintiff’s failure to produce any such
documents more than three months after the service of Defendant’s Document Requests is
remarkable. You then indicated that you would produce any such non-privileged documents
supporting Plaintiff’s alleged injuries; we await that production.
As to Request No. 6—seeking all documents and communications concerning Plaintiff’s
employment—I similarly noted that Plaintiff had not yet produced any responsive documents
despite his Response indicating that he would do so. You erroneously stated that you had
already produced “some” responsive documents, and I noted that that was incorrect. You then
stated that you would produce whatever responsive documents Plaintiff has. We await that
production.
Defendant reserves all rights with respect to Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s
Document Requests and his failure to produce any responsive documents.
Bill of Particulars
On April 18, 2022, we served Plaintiff (through your firm) with Defendant’s BOP
Demand, seeking amplification of the Complaint with respect to thirty-three (33) items. On
May 18, 2022, Plaintiff served his Verified Bill of Particulars, responding to certain of the
demands set forth in the BOP Demand, but objecting to most demands therein.
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023
August 30, 2022
Page 4 of 5
Robert S. Rosman, Esq.
During our call, you reiterated your position asserted in the Bill of Particulars that most
of the demands in the BOP Demand sought discovery rather than amplification of the pleadings.
I indicated that we disagree, noting, for example, that certain demands seek information
expressly contemplated by CPLR 3043 as appropriate for a bill of particulars. See CPLR 3043
(noting that in a personal injury action, particulars may be required regarding the timing and
location of the occurrence, a statement of the relevant acts and injuries, the length of time of
confinement to bed and house, the length of time incapacitated from employment, and total
amounts claimed as special damages). The parties appear to be at an impasse on this issue.
In addition, I note that Plaintiff still has not responded to Defendant’s Supplemental
Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars (“Supplemental BOP Demand”), served on or about
May 18, 2022, which set forth three additional demands. Plaintiff has waived any objections
thereto. See CPLR 3042(a) (requiring responses within 30 days of service).
Defendant reserves all rights in connection with Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s BOP
Demand and Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Supplemental BOP Demand.
Plaintiff’s Document Requests
During our call, you raised a number of times that Defendant had not produced any
documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Notice of and Demand for Discovery and Inspection
(“Plaintiff’s Document Requests”).3 As I explained during our call, there is good reason for
that—as specified in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Document Requests, Defendant does
not have any documents responsive to many of Plaintiff’s requests, while the remaining requests
seek irrelevant documents.
For example, during our call, you repeatedly referenced Request No. 20 of Plaintiff’s
Document Requests, which seeks “[f]inancial statements of any trusts held for the benefit of
Aaron.” This information is entirely irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Whether Aaron had a
trust—and if so, the financial records of any such trusts—do not bear in any way on whether any
alleged harassment or assault occurred or on any attendant damages. The same is true of
Request Nos. 19-27 and Request No. 29, all of which seek irrelevant information regarding
Aaron’s assets (or Defendant’s assets).
You also took issue with the fact that Defendant has not produced Aaron’s cell phone for
inspection, in light of Plaintiff’s allegation that Aaron took “photographs and/or video” on his
phone of the alleged assault (Compl. ¶ 25). As I explained during our call, Defendant has
possession of Aaron’s iPhone, but does not know the passcode to unlock it. The same is true of
Aaron’s MacBook Pro laptop that Defendant has in his possession. Therefore, Defendant is not
aware of the contents of those devices and whether there are any responsive documents or
communications therein.
3
I note that you had not previously requested a meet-and-confer on Plaintiff’s document requests. Rather, you
raised these issues solely in response to my inquiries regarding Plaintiff’s failure to produce responsive documents.
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023
August 30, 2022
Page 5 of 5
Robert S. Rosman, Esq.
You also asked if we would be producing a redacted version of Aaron’s autopsy report in
light of the Court’s August 19, 2022 order on Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 67). As I
explained during our call, our understanding of the order is that it required a redacted copy of the
autopsy report to be provided by the medical examiner. However, we are willing to provide a
copy of the autopsy report in Defendant’s possession containing the redactions required by the
order.
* * *
Finally, I reiterate that, more than three months after the commencement of disclosure,
Plaintiff has not produced a single document to substantiate his claims of alleged harassment and
assault by Aaron or any attendant damages. This is remarkable given that Plaintiff bears the
burden of establishing that those alleged acts occurred and that he suffered damages as a result
thereof. At this time, Defendant has no reason to believe that this action is anything more than
an attempted shakedown of Defendant without any evidentiary support. Defendant reserves his
right to seek costs, attorneys’ fees, and sanctions against Plaintiff and your law firm and
attorneys pursuant to Rule 130-1.1 of the Uniform Court Rules, CPLR 8303-a, and any other
applicable law should it be confirmed that Plaintiff has commenced and maintained frivolous
claims.
Very truly yours,
Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023 Exhibit F FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023 August 30, 2022 By Email Robert S. Rosman, Esq. Rosman Legal, P.C. 7-11 South Broadway, Suite 308 White Plains, NY 10601 rob@rosmanlegal.com Re: Neil B. Rice v. Lee R. Einsidler, Index No. 61665/2021 Dear Mr. Rosman: We write on behalf of defendant Lee R. Einsidler, as administrator of the Estate of Aaron Michael Einsidler (“Defendant”), in the above-captioned action. The below summarizes key points of our August 26, 2022 telephonic meet-and-confer on (i) Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatory Response”); (ii) Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s First Request for the Production of Documents and Things (the “Response to Defendant’s Document Requests” or “Response”); and (iii) Plaintiff’s Verified Bill of Particulars, served in response to Defendant’s Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars (“BOP Demand”). Please let me know if you disagree with anything stated below, or if you believe I omitted anything material. Medical Authorizations During our call, I asked whether Plaintiff would be providing updated authorizations for the release of his medical, mental health, and drug and alcohol treatment records, in accordance with the Court’s August 19, 2022 order on Defendant’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 66). You indicated that you intend to do so. As a reminder, the Court’s order requires Plaintiff to provide such authorizations to Defendant no later than September 8, 2022. We look forward to receiving them promptly. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Response On May 18, 2022, we served Plaintiff (through your firm) with Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (“Interrogatories”), consisting of seven interrogatories. On June 24, 2022—17 days after the deadline for responding to interrogatories under CPLR 3133 1—Plaintiff served his Interrogatory Response, which stated simply that “the Preliminary Conference Stipulation (NYSCEF Doc. No. 33), ‘so ordered’ by the Honorable Damaris Torrent on March 1 By failing to timely respond to the Interrogatories, Plaintiff has waived any objections thereto. See, e.g., Cooper v. Drobenko Bros. Realty, 200 A.D.2d 415, 415 (1st Dep’t 1994). FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023 August 30, 2022 Page 2 of 5 Robert S. Rosman, Esq. 28, 2022, does not provide or offer the opportunity to submit or respond to interrogatories. The Parties failed to stipulate to interrogatories at the court conference of March 25, 2022.” During our call, I asked whether Plaintiff was standing on his Interrogatory Response. I pointed out that Defendant’s Interrogatories were basic interrogatories seeking, inter alia, identification of potential witnesses, persons with knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint, and certain documents relied upon by Plaintiff. In response, you stated that Plaintiff did not need to respond to the Interrogatories because there are going to be depositions in the case, and that Plaintiff would therefore not be further responding to the Interrogatories. As I noted on our call, Plaintiff’s position is squarely at odds with the CPLR—which contemplates both interrogatories and depositions as available disclosure tools and nowhere prohibits one upon use of the other—as well as with basic disclosure practice in the State of New York. The parties are plainly at an impasse on this issue. Defendant reserves all rights with respect to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Interrogatories. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Document Requests On May 18, 2022, we served Plaintiff (through your firm) with Defendant’s First Request for the Production of Documents and Things (“Document Requests”), consisting of nine document requests. On June 24, 2022—7 days after the deadline for responding to document requests under the so-ordered Preliminary Conference Stipulation (Doc. No. 33)—Plaintiff served his Response to Defendant’s Document Requests. 2 The Response stated that Plaintiff would be providing documents responsive to only two of the nine requests—specifically, Request Nos. 2 and 6. As to the remainder, the Response stated various objections without stating that Plaintiff would produce any responsive documents. To date, Plaintiff has not produced a single document to Defendant. During our call, I indicated that I interpreted Plaintiff’s response to Request No. 1— which seeks all documents and communications concerning any meeting or communication between or among Plaintiff and Aaron Einsidler and/or Sara Einsidler—as a refusal to produce responsive documents, and I asked you multiple times to confirm that that was the case. You refused to answer my question directly, but you stated that you “stand by” your response. You indicated that the Request was “overbroad and burdensome” given that there were “hundreds” of meetings between Plaintiff and Aaron and/or Sara, although you failed to articulate what the burden would entail. As I explained during our call, the documents sought by Request No. 1 are highly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, given that he is alleging “continuous and ongoing” harassment by Aaron and Sara (Compl. ¶ 10) and an assault by both of them in November 2019. Incredibly, more than three months after service of Defendant’s Document Requests, Plaintiff has failed to produce a single text message, email, or other communication between Plaintiff and Aaron 2 By failing to timely respond to the Document Requests, Plaintiff has waived his objections. See, e.g., Watson v. City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 510, 525 (1st Dep’t 2018). FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023 August 30, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Robert S. Rosman, Esq. and/or Sara, notwithstanding that Plaintiff asserts claims based on an alleged long-term harassment and an assault by Aaron and Sara. Nor have you remotely supported your conclusory assertion of “burden.” Indeed, there appears to be no reason that Plaintiff cannot produce all his text messages, emails, and other communications with Aaron and/or Sara. You further indicated that you are not going to change your responses to any of Defendant’s document requests, and that you would not entertain possible compromises during the meet-and-confer process unless they are set forth in revised document requests. I indicated that your position is unreasonable and inconsistent with the purpose and practice of meet-and- confers, and that there is no reason to withdraw Defendant’s entirely valid document requests. As a result, we did not discuss the remainder of Defendant’s document requests as to which Plaintiff is refusing to produce responsive documents (Request Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9), given that the parties appear to be at an impasse on those Requests. I noted that there were two Requests—Request Nos. 2 and 6—as to which Plaintiff’s Response had indicated that he would produce responsive documents, but for which no production had been made. As to Request No. 2—seeking all documents and communications concerning any physical and/or mental injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered as a result of his interactions with Aaron and/or Sara—you stated that these materials were “part and parcel” of the medical records that would be produced by Plaintiff’s medical providers pursuant to the forthcoming medical authorizations in accordance with the Court’s August 19, 2022 order. I noted that Request No. 2 requests production of documents concerning Plaintiff’s physical and/or mental injuries in his possession, custody, or control (not that of his medical providers), and that Defendant is entitled to this highly probative evidence to assess the nature, cause, and scope, if any, of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. As I noted, Plaintiff’s failure to produce any such documents more than three months after the service of Defendant’s Document Requests is remarkable. You then indicated that you would produce any such non-privileged documents supporting Plaintiff’s alleged injuries; we await that production. As to Request No. 6—seeking all documents and communications concerning Plaintiff’s employment—I similarly noted that Plaintiff had not yet produced any responsive documents despite his Response indicating that he would do so. You erroneously stated that you had already produced “some” responsive documents, and I noted that that was incorrect. You then stated that you would produce whatever responsive documents Plaintiff has. We await that production. Defendant reserves all rights with respect to Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Document Requests and his failure to produce any responsive documents. Bill of Particulars On April 18, 2022, we served Plaintiff (through your firm) with Defendant’s BOP Demand, seeking amplification of the Complaint with respect to thirty-three (33) items. On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff served his Verified Bill of Particulars, responding to certain of the demands set forth in the BOP Demand, but objecting to most demands therein. FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023 August 30, 2022 Page 4 of 5 Robert S. Rosman, Esq. During our call, you reiterated your position asserted in the Bill of Particulars that most of the demands in the BOP Demand sought discovery rather than amplification of the pleadings. I indicated that we disagree, noting, for example, that certain demands seek information expressly contemplated by CPLR 3043 as appropriate for a bill of particulars. See CPLR 3043 (noting that in a personal injury action, particulars may be required regarding the timing and location of the occurrence, a statement of the relevant acts and injuries, the length of time of confinement to bed and house, the length of time incapacitated from employment, and total amounts claimed as special damages). The parties appear to be at an impasse on this issue. In addition, I note that Plaintiff still has not responded to Defendant’s Supplemental Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars (“Supplemental BOP Demand”), served on or about May 18, 2022, which set forth three additional demands. Plaintiff has waived any objections thereto. See CPLR 3042(a) (requiring responses within 30 days of service). Defendant reserves all rights in connection with Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s BOP Demand and Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Supplemental BOP Demand. Plaintiff’s Document Requests During our call, you raised a number of times that Defendant had not produced any documents responsive to Plaintiff’s First Notice of and Demand for Discovery and Inspection (“Plaintiff’s Document Requests”).3 As I explained during our call, there is good reason for that—as specified in Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s Document Requests, Defendant does not have any documents responsive to many of Plaintiff’s requests, while the remaining requests seek irrelevant documents. For example, during our call, you repeatedly referenced Request No. 20 of Plaintiff’s Document Requests, which seeks “[f]inancial statements of any trusts held for the benefit of Aaron.” This information is entirely irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Whether Aaron had a trust—and if so, the financial records of any such trusts—do not bear in any way on whether any alleged harassment or assault occurred or on any attendant damages. The same is true of Request Nos. 19-27 and Request No. 29, all of which seek irrelevant information regarding Aaron’s assets (or Defendant’s assets). You also took issue with the fact that Defendant has not produced Aaron’s cell phone for inspection, in light of Plaintiff’s allegation that Aaron took “photographs and/or video” on his phone of the alleged assault (Compl. ¶ 25). As I explained during our call, Defendant has possession of Aaron’s iPhone, but does not know the passcode to unlock it. The same is true of Aaron’s MacBook Pro laptop that Defendant has in his possession. Therefore, Defendant is not aware of the contents of those devices and whether there are any responsive documents or communications therein. 3 I note that you had not previously requested a meet-and-confer on Plaintiff’s document requests. Rather, you raised these issues solely in response to my inquiries regarding Plaintiff’s failure to produce responsive documents. FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2023 02:11 PM INDEX NO. 61665/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2023 August 30, 2022 Page 5 of 5 Robert S. Rosman, Esq. You also asked if we would be producing a redacted version of Aaron’s autopsy report in light of the Court’s August 19, 2022 order on Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 67). As I explained during our call, our understanding of the order is that it required a redacted copy of the autopsy report to be provided by the medical examiner. However, we are willing to provide a copy of the autopsy report in Defendant’s possession containing the redactions required by the order. * * * Finally, I reiterate that, more than three months after the commencement of disclosure, Plaintiff has not produced a single document to substantiate his claims of alleged harassment and assault by Aaron or any attendant damages. This is remarkable given that Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that those alleged acts occurred and that he suffered damages as a result thereof. At this time, Defendant has no reason to believe that this action is anything more than an attempted shakedown of Defendant without any evidentiary support. Defendant reserves his right to seek costs, attorneys’ fees, and sanctions against Plaintiff and your law firm and attorneys pursuant to Rule 130-1.1 of the Uniform Court Rules, CPLR 8303-a, and any other applicable law should it be confirmed that Plaintiff has commenced and maintained frivolous claims. Very truly yours,