FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/09/ :35 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/09/2018

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Index No /2015 Plaintiff, -against- NOTICE OF APPEAL SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC, Defendants. X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-named defendants, Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC hereby appeal to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in and for the First Department, from an order entered in the above entitled action in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York on the 12d' day of April 2018, and this appeal is taken from the part of that order which ordered "Defendants to produce all information relating to Defendants' solicitation, sales and profits for customers in 6 prohibited states and to restricted customers, (i.e.) those customers of ICC that Defendant Sujanan had contact with or learned of during his employment at ICC, that were customers of Arcadia between August 3, 2015-August 2, 2016." The preargument statement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The affidavit of service is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The order appealed from is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Date: May 9, 2018 Lake Success, NY MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC Netanel Newberger, Esq Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayi1 and 1 of 26

2 Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8 Lake Success, New York (516) To: Clerk of the Court New York County Courthouse 60 Centre Street, Room 141B New York, New York Jeffrey N. Levy, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Independent Chemical Corporation Tashlik Goldwyn Crandell Levy LLP 40 Cuttermill Road, Suite 200 Great Neck, NY (516) of 26

3 3 of 26

4 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, X Index No /2015 -against- SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC, PREARGUMENT STATEMENT Defendants. X 1. The title of this proceeding is as set forth in the caption above. 2. The full names of the original parties are as set forth in the caption above and there have been no changes in the parties. 3. Counsel for Defendants- â Appellants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil ("Sujanan") (" Arcadia" and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC ("Arcadia") is Netanel Newberger, Esq. of Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. The address is 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8, Lake Success, NY The telephone number is (516) (" 4. Counsel for Plaintiff- Respondent ("Plaintiff") is Jeffrey M. Levy, Esq. of Tashlik Goldwyn Levy LLP. The address is 40 Cuttermill Road, Suite 200, Great Neck, NY The telephone number is (516) This appeal is taken from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 6. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief brought against Defendants for an alleged breach of Sujanan's Confidentiality, Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation (" Agreement" Agreement and Restrictive Covenant ("Agreement"). The Complaint contains four (4) causes of action: (1) Breach of the Agreement (2) Misappropriation of Confidential Information (3) Tortious Interference with Contract (4) Unfair Competition 7. The result reached in the Court below was that it either granted reargument of Plaintiff's cross-motion to reargue a motion that was decided by the prior Justice, (" Order" Justice Erika Edwards, on December 29, 2017 ("December 2017 Order"), and upon reargument, reversed the December 2017 Order. Alternatively, the Court below 4 of 26

5 Plaintiff did not grant reargument, but rather only issued a discovery order. Under either interpretation, the Court below ordered Defendants to produce all information relating to Defendants' solicitation, sales and profits for customers in the six (6) prohibited states (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) and to restricted customers, i.e. those customers of Plaintiff that Sujanan had contact with or learned of during his employment with Plaintiff that were customers of Arcadia between August 3, 2015 and August 2, The decision reached in the Court below should be reversed. First, the Court below erred in granting reargument of a motion that was decided by Justice Edwards, the prior Justice. Plaintiff's cross-motion for reargument improperly included arguments and facts that were not included in the underlying motion before Justice Edwards. Second, in granting reargument, the Court below erred in reversing Justice Edwards's December 2017 Order, which had properly limited the scope of discovery to the four (4) overlapping customers between Plaintiff and Arcadia. The Courts below's order did not identify any compelling proof, or make any type of finding, that Justice Edwards overlooked or misapprehended any matter of law or facts so as to justify reversal of the December 2017 Order. Moreover, in reversing the December 2017 Order, the Court below also improperly (" reversed a prior Order by Justice Edwards, dated April 10, 2017 Order ("April 2017 Order" Order"), which Plaintiff never appealed or sought leave to reargue. In fact, Justice Edwards's April 2017 Order clarified that the injunction on solicitation of customers only applied to Sujanan, not Arcadia; that Plaintiff's request for additional discovery "must be limited in scope and not merely a fishing expedition"; that "Defendants are not required to provide Plaintiff with access to their complete customer list"; and that since "Sujanan's list of customers while he was employed by Plaintiff is limited in scope, Plaintiff is entitled to obtain Defendants' information regarding contact with these specific customers Plaintiff." subsequent to Defendant Sujanan's departure from The December 2017 Order was directly consistent with the parameters of the April 2017 Order. case" Third, the "law of the doctrine dictated a contrary result to Plaintiff's crossmotion to reargue. As noted, Plaintiff never appealed or sought reargument of Justice Edwards's April 2017 Order. As such, the April 2017 Order is the law of the case. However, the Court below improperly directed Arcadia to turn over its complete customer list, which directly violated the April 2017 Order and which has improperly rendered this matter a fishing expedition, which the Court's April 2017 Order specifically forbade. Finally, as noted above, it is not clear whether the Court below's April 12, 2018 Order granted Plaintiff's motion to reargue and upon reargument, reversed the December 2017 Order, or just issued a discovery order. In the event that the Court 5 of 26

6 below did not actually decide Plaintiff's cross-motion to reargue, then the law of the case doctrine should clearly have prevented the Court below from directly reversing Justice Edwards's April 2017 Order. 9. Two (2) additional appeals are pending in this action. Defendants have appealed Justice Goetz's April 12, 2018 Order (entered on April 13, 2018). A copy of Defendants' notice of appeal and preargument statement are attached hereto. Also, Plaintiff had appealed Justice Edward's December 2017 Order. The date of entry of the December 2017 Order is January 2, A copy of Plaintiff's notice of appeal and preargument statement are attached hereto. Dated: May 9, 2018 MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP PLLC Py Netanel Newberger, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC 3000 Marcus Ave., Suite 3W8 Lake Success, NY (516) of 26

7 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Index No /2015 Plaintiff, -against- NOTICE OF APPEAL SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC, Defendants. X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-named defendants, Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC hereby appeal to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in and for the First Department, from an order entered in the above entitled action in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York on the 13th day of April 2018, and this appeal is taken from each and every part of that order as well as from the whole thereof. The preargument statement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The affidavit of service is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The order appealed from is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Date: May 9, 2018 Lake Success, NY MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC Netanel Newberger, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8 Lake Success, New York {516) of 26

8 To: Clerk of the Court New York County Courthouse 60 Centre Street, Room 141B New York, New York Jeffrey N. Levy, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Independent Chemical Corporation Tashlik Goldwyn Crandell Levy LLP 40 Cutterrnill Road, Suite 200 Great Neck, NY (516) of 26

9 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, X Index No /2015 -against- SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC, PREARGUMENT STATEMENT Defendants. X 1. The title of this proceeding is as set forth in the caption above. 2. The full names of the original parties are as set forth in the caption above and there have been no changes in the parties. 3. Counsel for Defendants- â Appellants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil ("Sujanan") (" Arcadia" and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC ("Arcadia") is Netanel Newberger, Esq. of Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC. The address is 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8, Lake Success, NY The telephone number is (516) Counsel for Plaintiff- Respondent is Jeffrey M. Levy, Esq. of Tashlik Goldwyn Levy LLP. The address is 40 Cuttermill Road, Suite 200, Great Neck, NY The telephone number is (516) This appeal is taken from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. 6. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief brought against Defendant for an alleged breach of Sujanan's Confidentiality, Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation (" Agreement" Agreement and Restrictive Covenant ("Agreement"). The Complaint contains four (4) causes of action: (1) Breach of the Agreement (2) Misappropriation of Confidential Information (3) Tortious Interference with Contract (4) Unfair Competition 7. The result reached in the Court below was that it either granted reargument of Plaintiff's cross-motion to reargue a motion that was decided by the prior Justice, (" Justice Erika Edwards, on December 29, 2017 ("December 2017 Order"), and upon reargument, reversed the December 2017 Order. Alternatively, the Court below 9 of 26

10 did not grant reargument, but rather only issued a discovery order. Under either interpretation, the Court below found that Sujanan is prohibited from soliciting restricted customers either directly or through Arcadia. The Court below found that documents showing Arcadia's sales to the restricted customers are relevant for purposes of liability, as Plaintiff will seek to show that Arcadia acquired these customers improperly through Sujanan. 8. The decision reached in the Court below should be reversed. First, the Court below erred in granting reargument of a motion that was decided by Justice Edwards, the prior Justice. Plaintiff's cross-motion for reargument improperly included arguments and facts that were not included in the underlying motion before Justice Edwards. Second, in granting reargument, the Court below erred in reversing Justice Edwards's December 2017 Order, which had properly limited the scope of discovery to the four (4) overlapping customers between Plaintiff and Arcadia. The Courts below's order did not identify any compelling proof, or make any type of finding, that Justice Edwards overlooked or misapprehended any matter oflaw or facts so as to justify reversal of the December 2017 Order. Additionally, by making the factual finding that the Agreement and injunction prohibited Sujanan "individually or through an entity" from making prohibited sales, the Court below's order also improperly went beyond the scope of the motion that was decided by in the December 2017 Order. Justice Edwards Moreover, in reversing the December 2017 Order, the Court below also improperly (" reversed a prior Order by Justice Edwards, dated April 10, 2017 Order ("April 2017 Order" Order"), which Plaintiff never appealed or sought leave to reargue. In fact, Justice Edwards's April 2017 Order clarified that the injunction on solicitation of customers only applied to Sujanan, not Arcadia; that Plaintiff's request for additional discovery "must be limited in scope and not merely a fishing expedition"; that "Defendants are not required to provide Plaintiff with access to their complete customer list"; and that since "Sujanan's list of customers while he was employed by Plaintiff is limited in scope, Plaintiff is entitled to obtain Defendants' information regarding contact with these specific customers Plaintiff." subsequent to Defendant Sujanan's departure from The December 2017 Order was directly consistent with the parameters of the April 2017 Order. case" Third, the "law of the doctrine dictated a contrary result to Plaintiff's crossmotion to reargue. As noted, Plaintiff never appealed or sought reargument of Justice Edwards's April 2017 Order. As such, the April 2017 Order is the law of the case. However, the Court below improperly directed Arcadia to turn over its complete customer list, which directly violates the April 2017 Order and which has improperly rendered this matter a fishing expedition, which the Court's April 2017 Order specifically forbade. 10 of 26

11 Finally, as noted above, it is not clear whether the Court below's April 12, 2018 Order granted Plaintiff s motion to reargue and upon reargument, reversed the December 2017 Order, or just issued a discovery order. In the event that the Court below did not actually decide Plaintiff s cross-motion to reargue, then the law of the case doctrine should clearly have prevented the Court below from directly reversing Justice Edwards's April 2017 Order. 9. Two (2) additional appeals are pending in this action. Defendants have appealed Justice Goetz's April 12, 2018 Order (entered on April 12, 2018). A copy of Defendants' notice of appeal and preargument statement are attached hereto. Also, Plaintiff had appealed Justice Edwards's December 2017 Order. The date of entry of the December 2017 Order is January 2, A copy of Plaintiff s notice of appeal and preargument statement are attached hereto. Dated: May 9, 2018 MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP PLLC By: A- Netanel Newberger, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC Marcus Ave., Suite 3W8 Lake Success, NY (516) S of 26

12 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/13/ :5 6 PM NYSCE F DOC. NO. 183 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 182 REC ggp INDEX NO /2015 gscffpld/ RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/13/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY Ê018 PRESENT: Hon. POut A. Goetz. JSC Just/ce PART Ñ dex N-umber : /2015 INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL INDEX NO. vs. MOBON DAW PUTHANPURAY1L, SUJANAN SEQUENCE NUMBER : 007 MOBON SEQ. NO. COMPEL RESPONSE/lNTERROGATORY The following papers, numbered 1 to _, were read on this motion to/for M o 6 N Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - l98- Exhibits No(s). t7 Answering Affidavits - Exhibits No(s). >R-~35 I4V- Replying Affidavits No(s). â l~e Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is O StI2.~ Ctll C) P~ 2A. ~W ~~r J 4J T/' /'2"; ~ ~ ~o)m~al W~O ~E- Qmc.h~~ D ~"'i~~p-w/ir~~fc5~n a~ Wt > p[f;~ mme.<nti~~ WS>- Rs Y~ < tl,> C A.oa o~ n o» P l,a4+'+ ~(l4 ~h <> P<<lW<~3 65~ Qnh kl"~ah ~5 ~flag CagW/~ c/ ~~~4, ~a 3,~ ~ M~ ~@~II- +i p~~o ~ o~ ll.o Bi~i ~~c)~~~, P~~D ~mo< X-»on~ wy O Dated: < l2 ; T.C. PAUL A.uOa.s.C. 1. CHECK ONE:... Q CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE:...MOTION...--.NDTIDN IS: O GRANTED O DENIED O GRANTED IN PART OTHER 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:......, ,......,... O SETTLE ORDER O SUBM)T ORDER O DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT Q REFERENCE 1 of f of 26 2

13 [FI_LED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/2 4 / : 47 PM I N DEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OP NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X X INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, PlaintifF, Index No /2015 -against- SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and NOTICE OF APPEAL ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC, Defendants. : X -X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Independent Chemical Corporation ("ICC" or "Plaintiff") hereby appeals to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department, from a Decision and Order of Justice Erika M. Edwards of the Supreme Court, New York County in the.above entitled..... action dated December 29, 2017 and entered January 2, 2018, which Order granted in part the motion of Plaintiff ICC for production of documents and ordered depositions to be. completed by a date certain and denied that part of the motion which requested additional discovery from Defendants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC ("Sujanan" "Defendants" ("Sujanan or "Arcadia", collectively "Defendants") based upon the language of an earlier Order of this Court. 02\976 orappeal oc 13 of 26 1 of 9

14 laintiff INDEX NO. FILED : /2015 NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/2 4/ : 47 PH NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 This Appeal is taken from each and every part of the Decision and Order as well as the whole thereof. Dated: Great Neck, New York TASHLIK GOLDWYN CRAND LL January 24, 2018 LEVY LLP l. e, Esq. e s for laintiff Inde en ent Chemical Corporation 40 Cuttermill Road - Suite 200 Great Neck, New York Tel. No.: (516) To: Clerk County of New York 60 Centre Street New York, New York Netanel Newberger, Esq. Brett W. Joseph, Esq. Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC Attorneys for Defendants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC 3000 Marcus Avenue - Suite 3W8 Lake Success, New York Tel. No. (516) poticeofappeal 00024oc 2 14 of 26 2 of 9

15 INDEX NO /2015 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/ : 47 PM NYSCE F DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NY SCE F: 01/24/2018 CIVIL APPEAL PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT 15 of 26 3 of 9

16 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/ : 47 W INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION,. Plaintiff-Appellant, Index No /2015 -against- : : ' ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC, STATEMENT ' CIVIL APPEAL SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and PRE ARGUMENT Defendants-Respondent. C X 1. Title of action: INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION -against- SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC. 2. There has been no change in the title. 3. Individual name, law firm name, address and telephone number of counsel for appellants: Jeffrey N. Levy, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff Independent Chemical Corporation Tashlik Goldwyn Crandell Levy 40 Cuttermill Road - Suite 200 LLP Great Neck, New York (516) \preargument sumument (appeal) 01.07Acc 16 of 26 4 of 9

17 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/2 4 / : 47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/ Individual name, law firm, address and telephone number of counsel for each respondent: Netanel Newberger, Esq. Brett W. Joseph, Esq. Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC Attorneys for Defendants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC 3000 Marcus Avenue - Suite 3W8 Lake Success, New York Tel. No. (516) Court and County from which appeal is taken: Supreme Court, New York County. 6. Appeal is taken from an Order entered on Office, County of New York. January 2, 2018 in the County Clerk' Clerk's 7. There is no related action or other jurisdiction. proceeding now pending in any court of this or any 8. The nature and object of the cause(s) of action or the special proceeding: This is a proceeding for damages and injunctive relief Plaintiff Independent by Chemical Corporation against Defendants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC for breach of Sujanan's Confidentiality, Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation Agreement and Restrictive Covenant dated Defendants' August 13, 2009 and for breach of a court issued injunction dated October 15, 2015 and January 19, Result reached in the court or administrative body below: The Court granted that part of the motion production of documents compelling only as to four (4) customers and documents relating to the development and manufacture of a seafood product and denied additional production of sales made in Prohibited States, sales made to customers learned about while Defendant Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil worked for Plaintiff and sales made of the Plaintiff's seafood product, or others made in violation of the Agreement and Injunction and compelled Plaintiff to rely on the representations of Defendants that only four (4) customers were sold products by Defendants that were previously customers Of Plaintiff while Defendant Sujanan worked with Plaintiff prior to Defendant Sujanan's resignation. The motion was made, in part, based upon an earlier Order 02)97mprcargument statement (appeal)01-074oc 2 17 of 26 5 of 9

18 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/2 4 / : 47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 of the Court that advised such documents should be provided, 10. Grounds for seeking reversal, annulment or modification: Defendant Sujanan's solicitation of customers of Plaintiff requires that discovery be compelled on the requested categories of documents. Plaintiff should be allowed to discover the products and sales by Arcadia to entities that were customers of Plaintiff or which Defendant Sujanan learned of as a sales representative while he was employed by Plaintiff, as well as all sales by Arcadia made in the six Prohibited States and all sales of the seafood product at issue. In addition, solicitations made by Defendants' Defendants are necessary to learn about activities and to determine if Defendant Sujanan was using Defendant Arcadia to bypass the Agreement and Injunction. Additional discovery should be permitted to allow Plaintiff to learn of Defendants' the extent of sales to determine if were made in violation they of the Agreement or the Injunction issued by the Trial Court. The Court should not have Defendants' limited document discovery to only four (4) customers based on sole representation that only these customers overlapped with PlaintifPs customers. The Plaintiff should be permitted to independently verify the customers that were sold by Defendants in order to determine the extent of such sales and, therefore, the potential damages of Plaintiff as a result of the breach of the Agreement and Injunction. Therefore, there should be discovery of all.customers that Defendants solicited and sold which were customers of Plaintiff when Defendant Sujanan was employed by Plaintiff, all customers of which Sujanan became aware of while employed at Plaintiff, all customers of Defendants in the six Prohibited States, and all sales of the seafood product. In addition, solicitations of both Defendants Sujanan and Arcadia should be produced. The standard for discovery is very liberal and broad. There is a Confidentiality Stipulation Order in place. Defendants are protected. The standard for discovery for document requests is broad statute and case by law. The discovery requests are to be interpreted liberally. Defendant Sujanan solicited and made sales to customers of Plaintiff through his and ownership executive position at Arcadia. Defendant Sujanan cannot do through his company, Arcadia, what he could not do himself. The Court stated that Plaintiff is entitled to this information in an earlier Order. 02\9765cargument statement (appeal)0007.doc 3 18 of 26 6 of 9

19 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/ : 47 PM) INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/ There is no additional appeal in this action. Dated: Great Neck, NY TASHLIK GOLDWYN CRANDELL January 24, 2018 LEVY LLP By: J Levy, Esq. Att s for Pl dnti Independent Chemi Corporation 40 Cuttermill Road - Suite 200 Great Neck, New York Tel. No.: (516) To: Netanel Newberger, Esq. Brett W. Joseph, Esq. Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC Attorneys for Defendants Sujanan Thundel Puthanpurayil and Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC 3000 M arcus Avenue - Suite 3W8 Lake Success, New York Tel. No. (516) \preargument starcment (appeal)01-074oc 4 19 of 26 7 of 9

20 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/ : 47 PH INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 DECISION AND ORDER 20 of 26 8 of 9

21 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/24/ : 47 Pli INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/24/2018 INDEX NO /2015 "'* "' IfËREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NfWŸÒ NEW YORK COUNTY ' ² ² ¹ PRESENT: Erika M. Edwards, J.S.C. PART 47 Justice independent Chemical Corporation, INDEX NO /2015 Plaintiff, MOTIONDATE l 0/10/701 7 Sujanan Thundel Puthan Puraryil, et al. MOTIONSEQ. No. N/A Defendants. ~ ~ 3 The following papers, numbered 1 to, were read on this motion toffe r discovery letter motion ( / + 2-) Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - Exhibits No(s). Answering Affidavits - Exhlbits No(s). Ronivina Affidavits No(s). Once again, the court is asked to determine the scope of discovery required based on the prior court orders. After two years of attempts to obtain discovery, the parties still cannot complete discovery. Such unnecessary delays must end immediately. Based on the concerns raised in the parties' letters, dated October 30, 2017, the court determines that to Plaintiff Independent Chemical Corporation's I ll ("Plaintiff") alleged view of the previous court orders primarily O P related to its discovery demands regarding Defendant Arcadia Chemical and Preservative, LLC (" Arcadia" ("Arcadia"), are overbroad and beyond the scope of production required by the previous court orders. Both Defendants must.. produce all documents related to Defendant Sujanan Thundel Puthan Puraryil's ("Sujanan") alleged violations of I o the parties' Confidentiality, Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation Agreement and Restrictive Covenant, dated August 13, 2009, or the court's prior injunctive order. For example, Defendants must produce all documents related to i Ill Sujanan's solicitation of any of Plaintiff s clients or prospective clients who fall within the prohibited category and customers within the prohibited six states only for the relevant periods set forth in the agreement or injunction. Defendants have identified four clients who potentially overlapped customers with whom Sujanan Defendants' a 8 had contact during his employment with Plaintiff. At this point, Plaintiff must rely on ~ O 5 representations as to this limitation and Plaintiff is not entitled to review Defendants' complete client lists and ~ a: sales totals involving other clients. As such, it is hereby m 6 III K ORDERED that Defendants must produce the names and information responsive to Plaintiff's g discovery ~ 0 demands pertaining to all four entities and outstanding responses related to the development and manufacturing UJ o of the l-tessa Seafood product at issue, on or before January I6, 2018, at 5:00 p.m.; and it is further o ~ uj ORDERED that the parties must appear for a status conference on January I8, 2019, at I1:30 a.m., in 0of P: as which the parties will schedule depositions of all parties at a mutually agreeable date, time and place, but which O Îz 2 must be completed no later than March 1, 20I8. Dated: ' 2 Z2 /P-P- / 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE:...MOTION...,...,...,...,...MQTIQN ~,...,... -.MOTION IS: O GRANTED O DENIED g.granted IN PART O OTHER 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:...,......,,,...::.:...,..., O SETTLE ORDER O SUBMlT ORDER,.¼ f / HON.ERIKAM,EDWARDS i. CHECK ONE:... CASE DISPOSED IH8 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION, J.S.C. O DO NOT POST O FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT O REFERENCE 1 of 1 21 of 26 9 of 9

22 22 of 26

23 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, X Index No /2015 -against- AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC, Defendants. X NETANEL NEWBERGER affirms: I am not a party to the action, am over eighteen years of age and reside at West Hempstead, New York. On May 9, 2018, I served the within Notice of Appeal with Preargument Statement by depositing a true copy enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of Federal Express, addressed to the attorney for the Plaintiff, as follows: Jeffrey Levy, Esq. Tashlik Goldwyn Levy LLP 40 Cuttermill Road, Suite 200 Great Neck, NY (jlevy@tkgelaw.com) and by NYSCEF filed under Index No / of 26

24 24 of 26

25 FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04 /12 / : 33 W INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 180 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL CORPORATION,... : Index No /15 Plamtiff,.. - against - SUJANAN THUNDEL PUTHANPURAYIL and : ARCADIA CHEMICAL AND PRESERVATIVE, LLC, :. NOTICE OF ENTRY Defendants. : X - Sirs: Please take notice that the within is a true copy of an Order of the Honorable Paul A. Goetz, dated April 12,.2018, and duly entered in the within action in the office of the Clerk of New York County on April 12, Dated: Great Neck, New York April 12, 2018 TASHLIK GOLDWYN CRANDELL LEVY By: Je. Attorneys for Pl ' tiff 40 Cuttermill Road - Suite 200 Great Neck, NY Tel. No.:(516) Ilevy@tgcllaw.com To: Netanel Newberger, Esq. Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC 3000 Marcus Avenue - Suite 3W8 Lake Success, New York (516) via NYSCEF and REGULAR MAIL 01\976\notice ofcmry(order)( )01-01.doc 25 of 26 1 of 2

26 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/12/ :33 P$ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 180 RECEI INDEX NO /2015 Y 6EFi5Û NYSCEF DOC. No. 179 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2018 d8 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK INDEX NO. tt"tti't (Ptl'i 2-/ 2-I lp l> -against- P~% p44+ Qw ~ ~0 ~ ' ~y,~ g ~() b' +~AiEx arras~al ~ Plaintif(s) IASPART Defendant(s). ~ o~ O IT IS HEREBY eys hotnm ac fnlinwe tt' I' be ttt att ta tn ~s ~t' h m5'm w5'a b S¾AC..5 a ) vt.mtkn c,q P ) 1k oh. c.w TC.C-- W Ch, p A h-5 wan 41 emitw F wa-6. ars (4.o M LA' 4( 4i 4M(hoAW F r& T..('C.,. %& m,, CA NP CTP PtM A~ CA 2a 5 Il 'r4 e.0tm\ to / \ l c.enw 0 tent./½(ldmmsu r-. et TranA t- > m'o o 'o t-k~ h~ ( ~l8 Wt8 ~) ~~ lg h.~~ ~o ~a i'll «ms as 8W hl hi - S~cg~~ ~im -~Q~ ~ ~~)~~~ ~ ~ 4A ' ep y+ ~<a ~<~ o~~ or ~ -,tent )iqh> hlg40 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) Attorney for Defendant Attorney for Defendant Attorney for Defendant ' Dated: 2. C. C ' ',. 3. y ~l, ~L, 8 it~' AaT'' SOORDER ygq ENTER: NNL NIX4. PAUL A. A GO c 26 of 26 '2 off '2