FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/08/ :24 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 202 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/08/2018

Transcription

1

2 From: Ike Agwuegbo Esq Sent: Monday, June 4, :51 AM To: Dulgerian, Tony; Ike Agwuegbo Esq. Cc: Gegwich, Christopher Subject: Re: /2017 CHINWE OFFOR DR. - v. - MERCY MEDICAL CENTER Attachments: Nixon Peabody January 17th 2018 Letter.pdf Dulgerian, If I may be allowed to refresh your recollection, following the Court Ordered redactions of 11/13/2017, your Christopher Gegwich proposed further and additional redactions. Following my consent, these redactions were on 01/31/2018, during Motion argument before Judge Jennifer Schecter, further ordered by the honorable judge. As a result, these listed docket numbers do pre-date the learned judge's order on redactions. Please find attached herewith, your Firm's letter to me dated January 17th, I hope this helps in the final resolution of this issue. Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards. Ike Agwuegbo Esq 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY Office Tel: Fax: Cell: website: ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Tony" From: "Dulgerian, <tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com> "curia2007@yahoo.com" (ike@ikeagwuegbolaw.com)" To: <curia2007@yahoo.com>; "Ike Agwuegbo Esq. <ike@ikeagwuegbolaw.com> Christopher" Cc: "Gegwich, <cgegwich@nixonpeabody.com> Sent: Friday, June 1, :18 PM Subject: FW: /2017 CHINWE OFFOR DR. - v. - MERCY MEDICAL CENTER Agwuegbo, In furtherance of Ms. Touaf's below , we write to confer regarding the documents that should be removed from the docket and replaced with properly redacted versions.

3 As we have explained to you ad infinitum, the documents filed at ECF Doc. Nos. 162, 164, 188, 189, 190, 191 and 192 should be removed from the docket and replaced with correctly redacted versions. In your most recent to Ms. Touaf, you stated that some of the documents we seek to be removed from the docket Schecter." "predate the Redactions and Sealing Order of the Hon. Judge I believe your analysis of the timing of events in this case is off. Justice Schecter entered the November 13, 2017 sealing order on November 15, 2017 (ECF Doc. No. 160). We served notice of entry of the order on that same day (ECF Doc. No. 161). You filed the erroneously redacted pleadings after Justice Schecter's November 13, 2017 order, on December 4, 2017 (ECF Doc. Nos ) and again on April 7, 2018 (ECF Doc. Nos ). To be absolutely clear, we are not seeking the removal from the docket of any documents that predate Justice Schecter's November 13, 2017 order, nor would we need to, since Justice Schecter's order sealed such documents. Thus, contrary to your , the copies of the pleadings that you erroneously filed did not predate Justice Schecter's November 13, 2017 order. Below are excerpts from the docket which clearly shows the temporal progression: RECIMGM-'..9BRErt.Œ!.MOIlG!...Cacti.l'LQTlQII. 'JI.o.t.io.rir-GG2 prcicessed 1/15/2017 Court User ConDrnwion Nrnicn _1_[1_ $rgt ÇF Or EnTRY i'mouraris gn,-1 pif.ice..ed 11/is/2017 nulgarian. T. conermatin n Nntire _1.kf_ imipt A1N1 pin cec.'arl 12/04/2017 REDACTEDCOMPI.AENT Ag.yp_ugþp,J_, qgt $rmatioil_tfsij_qg Reducted per 22 NYCRR ZGZ.5{e) _1_G_ f X'HINIl m) - 3 procemed 12/04/2017 NUMEROU5 SUPPORTIVEDOCUMENTS Agy.v_qgbfa_1,. l. ConSFmatio _tfgli.çg Nedacted per 22 NYCRR 2G2.5(e) _ 21._ c.-9_ws.a1nf g' AMÇ_N_fg _Q] Q) Nan.'sser1 12/04/2017 REDACTEDAMENDED COMPi..ATNT Agregg.D.C..].. G.O.D90.'04t,j5tD 6.I.Çt Reducted per 22 NYCRR 202.S(e) _ E20-t[9lTM1 - I N ccperi 12/04/2017 NUMER.OU55UPPORTIVEDOCUMENT5 Ag.Wu.g.b.Q,. J.,. Cor ñrmgdgg..g-gtj.gg ~MPLA~N~T' _1 Ç_QM_I A_j_N_]_ F.JiQÇ_D_] Prorewi'd 04/07/2018 REDACTEDSECONDAMENDED COMPLAENT Aquieqbo. F. Confirmation Notice Redaaed per 22 NYCRR 2O2.5(e) _LD.'2.. lpga. E8.I.1.[W]I5] --I Piecev; ed 04/07/2018 REDACTEDEMHIBIT 1 Aciwu,iumb_g.,_[.. Cgnrism. plignnr;.tico Redacted per 22 NYCRR52O2.5(e) D,' _12Q, CON Pl.AINT(fs.MENCED) fliocened 04/07/2018 REDACTEDSECONDAMENDED COMPLAENT(CORRECTED) I 9 w_u i.v849ti NJ. _ _. ggdium;gtigg_f i hqg Redacted per 22 NYCRR ZG2,$(e) 1_2]._ E'-'H[BJT(51 - t Piecessed 04/07/2013 REDACTEDEXHIBETCORRECTED Alm.Icgh.Q...I. ÇQsfi.F2illitD.fl9.ti Reducted sur 22 NYCRR 202.S{e) _L_9.2_ _tjjgj_pr,_5j d Procci.secl 64/07/2018 REDACTEDEXHiBIT CORRECTED 80MLRg09...I, Codirmation Net ce Dedad'ed per 22 NKRR 202.5(c) _122. REQUESTFOR RESTPICTED5TATUS Proc.ened 04/10/2018 Redacted per 22 NYCRR ZGZ,5(e) Anwiirmb_g_d. confirmation Nol irp 1_24. E'(H[BJT(5) - I orocessed 04/10/2013 Colut Order on redact.ions to second Arnended Compla nt and AlurWgDQ. F. Qergmati9nj3pitts Exhibits Aedaded per 22 NW'RR 2O2.5(e) Please tell us which specific ECF document numbers you believe should be removed from the docket and replaced with newly redacted versions. To the extent your list of ECF document numbers differs from our list in any fashion, please explain, with specificity, why you disagree with each ECF document number on our list. As previously mentioned, we have explained to you, several times, in numerous correspondence, why 2

4 each and every one of the documents filed at ECF Doc. Nos. 162, 164, 188, 189, 190, 191 and 192 should be removed from the docket and re-filed, to which you have provided no substantive response. Please let us know your position on the foregoing as soon as possible so that we can resolve this issue promptly. -Tony N\ /. / Associate /Q f tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com.com T or C F Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY ¹¹' Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46 Street New York, NY only to the designatedrecipien1(s)of the message.if you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Karen Touaf [mailto:ktouaf@nycourts.gov] Sent: Friday, June 1, :49 PM To: Dulgerian, Tony <tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com>; curia2007@yahoo.com Cc: Donna Deland <ddeland@nycourts.gov>; Gegwich, Christopher <cgegwich@nixonpeabody.com>; Felicia.Gross@ag.ny.gov Subject: Re: /2017 CHINWE OFFOR DR. - v. - MERCY MEDICAL CENTER Counselors, Please lets do our best to be efficient, avoid motion practice and do the right thing. AII the stipulation needs to say is that the parties consent to having the pleadings e-filed withdrawn and replaced by a properly redacted pleading. If you provide the Judge with a properly redacted complaint we will have the old one replaced. The parties here agreed on the redactions as some were ordered by the court and others were agreed to by the parties. There is no dispute on how the pleadings should look. Provide us with the stipulation merely stating that the parties consent to having the previously filed pleadings (NYCEF Doc No X) withdrawn and replaced by a properly redacted pleading (attached) and we will have them replaced. In the event that there are disputed redactions, please confer with one another first and only then list specifically what is in dispute and why. Sincerely, Karen Touaf From: Ike Agwuegbo Esq <curia2007(â)yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 1, :36:06 AM To: tdulqerian(â)nixonpeabody.com;.com; Karen Touaf 3

5 Cc: Donna Deland; Gegwich, Christopher; Subject: RE: /2017 CHINWE OFFOR DR. - v. - MERCY MEDICAL CENTER Dear Ms. Touaf, You will notice that the Counsel for the defendants has cleverly omitted the inclusion of the proposed stipulation. This would have provided you with a clearer picture of the issues here. In sum, the Defendants are seeking inter-alia, that the Plaintiff stipulates to the"erroneous filing of same" documents without redacting on documents that predate the Redactions and Sealing Order of the Hon. Judge Schecter. Despite my protestations, they have refused to agree to the amendment of the language of the proposed stipulation. The only documents filed in error are the documents referred to in the OSC. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further clarifications. Thanks so much. Ike Agwuegbo Plaintiffs Attorney Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Dulgerian, Tony <tdulqerian@nixonpeabody.com>.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Touaf - Pursuant to the attached exchange with plaintiffs counsel, Agwuegbo is unwilling to enter into a stipulation acknowledging the full scope of the redactions missed from the filed pleadings. In sum, the versions of the pleadings filed at ECF Doc. Nos. 162, 164, 188, 189, 190, 191 and 192 include unredacted information that Justice Schecter directed Agwuegbo to redact pursuant to her November 13, 2017 sealing order. Since this information remains unredacted on the docket, Agwuegbo is presently in violation of Justice Schecter's November 13, 2017 order. In addition, the pleadings filed at ECF Doc. Nos. 162, 164, 188 and 190 include additional information that should be redacted, pursuant to our prior agreement with Agwuegbo which Justice Schecter approved during the January 31, 2018 oral argument in this matter. Despite the fact that we have raised these issues with Agwuegbo numerous times, he is unwilling to recognize the full extent of the problem and, for some reason he has not articulated to us, unwilling to agree to a stipulation regarding indisputable matters. In light of these circumstances, we would very much appreciate it if the Court could apprise the parties how to proceed. Given that plaintiff and her counsel are undoubtedly in violation of Justice Schecter's November 13, 2017 order, it would be unfair and inequitable for the MMC Defendants to have to make yet another motion to address these issues. Should you wish to discuss this matter further, we are available at the Court's convenience. Respectfully submitted, 4

6 N\ Associate II T or C F Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY * Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46 Street New York, NY nixonpeabody.com tie only to the designatedrecipien1(s)of the message.if you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Karen Touaf [mailto:ktouaf@nycourts.qov] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, :20 PM To: Dulgerian, Tony <tdulqerian@nixonpeabody.com>.com> Cc: Donna Deland <ddeland@nycourts.qov>; Gegwich, Christopher <cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com>;.com>; felicia.qross@aq.ny.qov;.n. curia2007@yahoo.com Subject: Re: /2017 CHINWE OFFOR DR. - v. - MERCY MEDICAL CENTER et al As of now, the stipulation can come to Judge Schecter. When do you expect to send it? From: Dulgerian, Tony <tdulqerian@nixonpeabody.com>.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, :04:00 PM To: Karen Touaf Cc: Donna Deland; Gegwich, Christopher; Felicia.Gross@aq.ny.qov;.n. curia2007@yahoo.com Subject: RE: /2017 CHINWE OFFOR DR. - v. - MERCY MEDICAL CENTER et al Dear Ms. Touaf - We received notice yesterday evening that this matter was reassigned to the Honorable Margaret A. Chan, J.S.C. In light of the apparent reassignment of this case, we wanted to check in regarding how the reassignment will impact your instructions set forth in your below . Once the parties negotiate the terms of a stipulation, should we send the stipulation to you or should we contact Justice Chan's chambers for further instructions? Should you wish to discuss this matter further, we are available at the Court's convenience. Respectfully Tony Dulgerian submitted, N\ Associate II tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com.com T or C F Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY * Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46 Street New York, NY Pleaseconsider the environment before printing this 5

7 only to the designatedrecipient(s) of the messageịf you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Karen Touaf Sent: Tuesday, May 8, :05 PM To: Gegwich, Christopher Dulgerian, Tony Cc: Donna Deland Subject: RE: /2017 CHINWE OFFOR DR. - v. - MERCY MEDICAL CENTER et al Good Afternoon, The Judge has received the proposed OSC that deals with deleting docket entries. We suspect that there will be no objection. Can you please prepare a stipulation that the Judge will so order allowing for removal of any erroneously e-filed documents. It will be a an efficient way of getting the matter resolved. Once the stipulation is ready please me and e-file it. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Karen Touaf Agwuegbo, Your disagreement with the language in our stipulation characterizing your pleadings as "erroneously filed redaction" without sufficient is factually incorrect. Contrary to your , all of the pleadings referenced in our stipulation include information that Justice Schecter directed you to redact, pursuant to her November 13, 2017 sealing order, as we made clear to you in our prior correspondence. Specifically, in our January 2, 2018 and January 17, 2018 letters, we informed you that Paragraph 49 of the Complaint filed on December 4, 2017 (ECF Doc. No. 162) and Paragraphs 56 and 60 of the Second Amended Complaint filed on December 4, 2017 (ECF Doc. No. 164) are missing redactions ordered by Justice Schecter. Despite your clear knowledge of these deficiencies for nearly six months, you did not correct these issues. Furthermore, in my April 10, , I informed you that Paragraph 61 of the Second Amended Complaint filed on April 7, 2018 (ECF Doc. No. 190) includes an unredacted reference to a treatment date and month, which Justice Schecter ordered you to redact. In addition, on page 79 of the exhibits to the Second Amended "Tue" Complaint that you filed twice on that same date (ECF Docs. No ), you did not redact the word in the that your client sent to Niti Rayjada, M.D., which Justice Schecter also ordered you to redact. Yet again, the insufficiently redacted versions of these pleadings remain on the public docket to date. There also appears to be no dispute, based on your below , that the documents filed at ECF Doc. Nos. 188 and 189 were erroneously filed without sufficient redaction. Thus, there can be no dispute that your filing of the pleadings at ECF Doc Nos. 162, 164, 188, 189, 190, 191 and 192 violate and continue to violate Justice Schecter's November 13, 2017 order. You also do not contest that the pleadings filed at ECF Doc. Nos. 162, 164, 188 and 190 include additional information that should be redacted, pursuant to our agreement, which Justice Schecter approved during the January 31, 2018 oral argument. Although you properly redacted certain exhibits to the pleadings (ECF Doc. Nos ), it makes little sense to remove the insufficiently redacted pleadings from the docket, yet allow the exhibits to remain. The more prudent course of action would be to remove the errant pleadings and their exhibits from the docket in their entirety and re-file them with proper redactions. Based on the foregoing, these documents were unquestionably filed in error, and without sufficient redactions. Therefore, we stand by the language in our stipulation. 6

8 Please sign and return the stipulation we provided to you by the close of business tomorrow. Please be advised that this is your last chance to correct this longstanding issue before we raise it with the Court. While we have been exceedingly patient with you, and hoped that you would fix these redaction issues promptly and voluntarily, it is becoming apparent that you are unwilling to do so. Rather, it is clear that your conduct is frivolous and is undertaken primarily to delay and prolong the resolution of this litigation and to harass and maliciously injure our clients. Indeed, instead of fixing this simple and straightforward issue many months ago when we first brought it to your attention, you compounded the problem by filing more documents without proper redaction and repeatedly violating Justice Schecter's November 13, 2017 order and our subsequent agreement, which continues to date. If we are forced to make a motion to address your conduct in this matter, we reserve the right to seek any and all remedies available to us. -Tony N\ Associate. /Q f tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com.com.-, T or C F Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46¹¹¹ Street New York, NY only to the designatedrecipien1(s)of the message.if you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Ike Agwuegbo Esq mailto:curia2007@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, May 28, :56 PM To: Dulgerian, Tony <tdulqerian@nixonpeabody.com>;.com>; Ike Agwuegbo Esq. (ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com) <ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com> Cc: Gegwich, Christopher <cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com>.com> Subject: Re: Stipulation Deleting Documents Filed in Error Dulgerian, Thank you for your and attached proposed stipulation. I do not agree with the language of the proposed stipulation below: " which were erroneously filed without sufficient redaction should be and, upon execution by the Honorable Jennifer G. Schecter, J.S.C., are hereby ordered to be removed from the docket." AII the listed docket entries save the two entries filed in error, were not erroneously filed without sufficient redactions. The redactions are sought to be made pursuant to the Order of Hon. Judge Jennifer Schecter. Further, I have looked at the docket entries 190 and 191 and they are in complete compliance with the 7

9 order of the Hon. Judge Schecter and also covers all the additional redactions agreed upon by the Parties. Please take another look at the additional proposed redactions which were sent to me by Gegwich and agreed to before Judge Schecter. Please kindly amend the proposed stipulation accordingly. Thanks. Ike Agwuegbo Esq 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY Office Tel: Fax: Cell: website: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. Tony" From: "Dulgerian, ahoo.com" To: "curia2007 Christopher" Cc: "Gegwich, Sent: Monday, May 28, :31 AM.com).com> II "Ike Subject: RE: Stipulation Deleting Documents Filed in Error.com).com> Agwuegbo Esq. (ike ikea wue Agwuegbo, I write as a follow up to my below s - please advise whether our stipulation is acceptable so that we can submit it to the Court. Please let us know your position by noon tomorrow - otherwise we will have no choice but to raise this issue with the Court. -Tony NP Associate tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com.com T or C F Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY ¹¹' Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46 Street New York, NY nixonpeabody.com tie 8

10 only to the designatedrecipient(s) of the message.if you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Dulgerian, Tony Sent: Thursday, May 24, :51 AM To: Ike Agwuegbo Esq. Cc: Christopher G. Gegwich Esq. Subject: RE: Stipulation Deleting Documents Filed in Error Agwuegbo, I write as a follow up to my below s - please advise whether our stipulation is acceptable so that we can submit it to the Court. Please let us know by the close of business tomorrow - Court. otherwise, we will have no choice but to contact the -Tony N\ Associate II tdulgerian(dtnixonpeabody.com e--, T or C F com Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY ¹¹' Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46 Street New York, NY nixonpeabody.com tie only to the designatedrecipient(s) of the message.if you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Dulgerian, Tony Sent: Tuesday, May 22, :42 PM To: curia2007@yahoo.com; Ike Agwuegbo Esq. <ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com> (ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com) Cc: Christopher G. Gegwich Esq. <cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com> (cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com).com>.com) Subject: RE: Stipulation Deleting Documents Filed in Error Agwuegbo, I write as a follow up to my below s - please advise whether our stipulation is acceptable so that we can submit it to the Court. Thanks, Tony 9

11 N\ Associate r. i~ Ig f tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com.corn T or C F Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46* 46 Street New York, NY only to the designatedrecipient(s) of the message.if you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Dulgerian, Tony Sent: Friday, May 18, :28 AM To: curia2007@yahoo.com; Ike Agwuegbo Esq. <ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com> (ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com) Cc: Christopher G. Gegwich Esq. <cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com> (cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com).com>.com) Subject: RE: Stipulation Deleting Documents Filed in Error Agwuegbo, I write as a follow up to my below - please advise whether our stipulation is acceptable so that we can submit it to the Court. Thanks, Tony N\ Associate r. /Q f tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com.com T or C F Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY * Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46 Street New York, NY only to the designatedrecipient(s) of the message.if you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Dulgerian, Tony Sent: Tuesday, May 15, :16 PM To: curia2007@yahoo.com; Ike Agwuegbo Esq. <ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com> (ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com) Cc: Christopher G. Gegwich Esq. <cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com> (cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com).com>.com) Subject: RE: Stipulation Deleting Documents Filed in Error Agwuegbo, 10

12 Attached please find our revisions to your draft stipulation in Dr. Offor's state court action removing the erroneous versions of the pleadings from the docket, along with a comparison document showing our changes in redline format. A few points regarding our revisions. Initially, we added several NYSCEF docket entry numbers to your initial list of docket entries, because your initial list did not include several versions of the pleadings that need to be correctly redacted. Specifically, we added docket entry numbers 162, 163, 164 and 165, which constitute copies of the Complaint and Second Amended Complaint, and their exhibits, respectively, which you filed following Justice Schecter's November 13, 2017 sealing order. These versions of the pleadings, however, did not include the redactions we agreed upon, and which Justice Schecter approved, during the January 31, 2018 oral argument. I described this issue in my January 2, 2018 letter and April 10, to you. Likewise, the version of the Second Amended Complaint, and its exhibit, at docket entry numbers 190, 191 and 192 are missing redactions, as I described in my April 10, to you. All of these docket entries need to be removed, since they contain materials that should be redacted when filed on the public docket. We also added a provision requiring you to file correctly redacted versions of the Complaint and Second Amended Complaint, so that we can resolve this issue on a going forward basis. We will ask that you send us your proposed redacted versions of the pleadings before you file them with the Court, so that we can ensure that they are accurate and avoid unnecessary motion practice in the future. Please advise if our revisions to the stipulation are acceptable so that I can send it to Ms. Touaf. Thanks, Tony N\ Associate tdulgerian@nixonpeabody.com.com T or C F Nixon II Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY Nixon Peabody LLP 55 West 46¹¹¹ Street New York, NY only to the designatedrecipien1(s)of the message.if you arenot an intendedrecipient, pleasenotify the senderimmediately and deletethe messagefrom your system. From: Ike Agwuegbo Esq mailto:curia2007@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 9, :52 PM To: Dulgerian, Tony <tdulqerian@nixonpeabody.com>;.com>; Gegwich, Christopher <cqeqwich@nixonpeabody.com>;.com>; Ike Agwuegbo <ike@ikeaqwueqbolaw.com> Subject: RE: Stipulation Deleting Documents Filed in Error Dulgerian, Please find attached a draft Stipulation deleting documents filed in error. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. 11

13 Ike Agwuegbo Esq 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY Office Tel: Fax: Cell: website: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. 12

14 1 NIX0N ""- ATTORNEYSAT LAW ~Iy~ PEABOIY == 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho,.NY January 17, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC AND REGULAR MAIL Ike Agwuegbo, Esq. 575 Lexington Avenue, 4* Floor New York, New York RE: Offor v. Mercy Medical Center, et al. 17 Civ (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.) Index No /17 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.) Dear Agwuegbo: We write to respond to your January 4, 2018 letter in connection with Dr. Chinwe Offor Action" v. Mercy Medical Center, et al., 17 Civ (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "SDNY Action") and Offor v. Mercy Medical Center, et al., Index No /17 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.) (the "State Court Action" Action"). Specifically, we write in furtherance of our requests that you redact additional information from the pleadings in the State Court Action and redact the pleadings in the SDNY Action so that they are consistent with the redacted pleadings in the State Court Action. With respect to our proposed additional redactions to the pleadings in the State Court Action, we write to confirm your position that you do not oppose our proposed additional redactions, but contend that it would not be "proper" amend" for you to "unilaterally the Order" November 13, 2017 order (the "Sealing Order") issued by the Honorable Jennifer G. Schecter, J.S.C., sealing certain portions of the pleadings in the State Court Action and directing you to file redacted versions of these documents in their place. Although there is nothing in the Sealing Order preventing you from redacting additional information from the pleadings, we are amenable to raising this issue with Justice Schecter during the upcoming oral argument on January 31, 2018 and expect that you will join in our application to correct this undisputed issue. In addition, your January 4, 2018 letter did not address the issue we raised in our January 2, 2018 letter regarding your failure to redact certain paragraphs of the pleadings in accordance with the Sealing Order, to wit, paragraph 49 of the Complaint and paragraphs 56 and 60 of the Second Amended Complaint in the State Court Action. Please advise whether you would be to correct these redactions and, if so, we can also address this issue during the upcoming oral argument

15 Ike Agwuegbo, Esq. January 17, 2018 Page 2 of 2 As for the pleadings in the SDNY Action, we write to clarify our request. In your January 4, 2018 letter, you state that our "requested redactions are overly extensive", but do not describe which of our proposed redactions are problematic. To be clear, we proposed in our January 2, 2018 letter that you redact the same information from the pleadings in the SDNY Action that Justice Schecter required in the Sealing Order, along with the additional redactions we proposed in the letter, to which you do not object (i.e., paragraphs 54 and 73 of the Complaint and paragraphs 61 and 80 of the Second Amended Complaint in the State Court Action). In other words, we are not asking you to redact anything extra from the pleadings in the SDNY Action that will not be redacted in the State Court Action. Since you do not oppose the redaction of this same information in the State Court Action, we see no reason why you would object to these same redactions in the SDNY Action. Please advise if our proposal in this regard is acceptable and, if so, we reiterate our request that you file a motion in the SDNY Action to seal the pleadings and file redacted versions in their place. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me. pours~,'' Very truly yours, hristopher G Gegwich cc: Tony G. Dulgerian, Esq I