FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/23/ :51 AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2015 EXHIBIT B

Transcription

1 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/23/ AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF 02/23/2015 EXHIBIT B

2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x VIJAY SINGH, Plaintiff, v. PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant x Index No /2013 PLAINTIFF VIJAY SINGH S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT S SECOND REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ( CPLR ), Plaintiff Vijay Singh, by his attorneys Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC and Rosenblum & Reisman P.C., serves upon Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. ( PGA TOUR ) Responses and Objections ( Responses ) to Defendant s Second Request for the Production of Documents, dated March 3, 2014 ( Demands ). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT These Responses reflect only the current status of Plaintiff s knowledge, understanding and belief respecting the matters about which inquiry has been made. As discovery in this action proceeds, Plaintiff may discover additional or different information or documents. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, modify, supplement, clarify or further explain these Responses. These Responses are without prejudice to Plaintiff s right to use or rely on, at any time, any subsequently discovered information or information omitted from these Responses as a result of mistake, error, oversight or inadvertence. Plaintiff further reserves the right to object on appropriate grounds to the introduction of any portion of these Responses into evidence. Any inadvertent disclosure by Plaintiff of information protected by the attorney-client 1

3 privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection shall not constitute a waiver of that privilege or protection. These Responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to discovery conducted in the above-captioned action. Each Response is subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not limited to, objections concerning competency, privacy, relevance, specificity, over breadth, undue burden, materiality, confidential proprietary or trade secret material or admissibility) which would require the exclusion of any response contained herein. All such objections are reserved and may be interposed at any subsequent hearing or trial. Plaintiff responds to these Demands as he interprets and understands them. If Defendant subsequently asserts an interpretation of the Demands that differs from Plaintiff s understanding, Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend his objections and/or Responses herein. The fact that Plaintiff has responded to the Demands is not an admission, or a concession of the existence, of any fact set forth or assumed by the Demands nor does a response constitute evidence of any fact set forth or assumed. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. These General Objections are hereby incorporated by reference into the Responses made with respect to each separate request for documents. The inclusion of any specific objection below is neither intended as, nor shall in any way be deemed, a waiver of any General Objection or of any other objection made herein or asserted at a later date. In addition, the failure to include at this time any general or specific objection to a request is neither intended as, nor shall be deemed, a waiver of Plaintiff s right to assert that objection or any other objection at a later date. 2. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they seek production or 2

4 information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable statutory or common law privilege, prohibition, limitation or immunity from disclosure. Plaintiff will not produce such privileged materials, and any inadvertent production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege, immunity, prohibition or limitation with respect to such documents, information or any work product doctrine which may attach thereto. Nothing contained in these objections is intended as, or shall be deemed, a waiver of any attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, immunity, prohibition or limitation. 3. Plaintiff objects to the Demands as unduly burdensome and oppressive to the extent they seek (a) the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence; (b) materials that are unduly burdensome to locate or obtain; (c) the production of materials over which Defendant has possession, custody, control or a means of access; and (d) publicly available materials that are already in Defendant s possession or otherwise available to Defendant. 4. Plaintiff objects to each definition, instruction and Demand calling for each, all or any person(s), document(s), record(s), information or communication(s), or similar such language, on the grounds it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, confusing, overbroad or otherwise lack sufficient precision or particularity to permit a response. 6. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they call for a legal 3

5 conclusion. 7. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they seek to impose requirements or conditions beyond the scope permitted by the CPLR. 8. Plaintiff will respond to the Demands based on Plaintiff s own present knowledge, information and belief. Plaintiff s responses are at all times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation discloses. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement or amend these Responses and objections upon, among other things, discovery of additional facts and materials and other developments or proceedings in this matter. Plaintiff reserves the right to make use of, or introduce at any hearing or at trial, materials responsive to the Demands discovered subsequent to the date of the initial production in response to the Demands. 9. Plaintiff will respond to each request with materials currently in Plaintiff s possession, custody or control. 10. Any agreement by Plaintiff to produce a document or documents in partial response to any portion of the Demands, or the voluntary production of documents not called for by the Demands, is not a waiver of the right to object to the production of other documents specified in the Demands. 11. Plaintiff s production of materials in response to the Demands is not intended to waive, and does not constitute any waiver of, any and all objections which Plaintiff may have to the admissibility, authenticity or relevance of the materials produced. For all materials produced in response to the Demands, Plaintiff reserves until the hearing or trial of this matter all objections and other questions regarding the competency, relevance, materiality, privilege and admissibility of any such documents as evidence. 4

6 12. Plaintiff objects to the Demands to the extent they seek information without limitation to any time period. DOCUMENTS DEMANDED DEMAND NO. 1 All Documents and Communications concerning Deer Antler Spray, The Ultimate Spray or IGF-l. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 1 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 1. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 2 All Documents and Communications concerning whether The Ultimate Spray or any Deer Antler Spray product contains any Banned Substance. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 2 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 2. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged 5

7 DEMAND NO. 3 All Documents and Communications concerning Your use of The Ultimate Spray. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 3 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 3. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, and specifically denying that Singh used a deer antler velvet product by spraying such a product in his mouth or on his body as that term is set forth in the PGA TOUR s Anti-Doping Program, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 4 All Documents and Communications concerning Your efforts to determine whether The Ultimate Spray or any Deer Antler Spray product contained any Banned Substance before You used The Ultimate Spray. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 4 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 4. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 5 All Documents and Communications concerning any investigation or due diligence You performed concerning SWATS, Mitch Ross or Christopher Key before You used The Ultimate Spray. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 5 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 5. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is 6

8 vague and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response and specifically denying that Singh used a deer antler velvet product by spraying such a product in his mouth or on his body as that term is set forth in the PGA TOUR s Anti-Doping Program, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 6 All Documents and Communications concerning any testing or analysis conducted on The Ultimate Spray at Your request, or otherwise obtained by You, including Documents and Communications sufficient to identify (a) complete internal and external chain of custody documentation; (b) a list of all Persons involved in the testing, including signatures and/or initials and position title(s); (c) a summary of the analytical principles of the testing methods utilized; (d) injection sequence verification data; (e) all testing for any screening or confirmation tests, including chromatograms (or other relevant data) for negative controls, positive controls (with concentration indicated, if relevant), standard(s)/calibrator(s) (if relevant), and sample aliquot(s); (f) any and all results of testing; and (g) all correspondence (including electronic communication) concerning the testing. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 6 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 6. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 7 All Communications, from January 1, 2010 through the present, between You and any potential or actual sponsors concerning the possibility of You serving as a sponsor or endorser. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 7 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 7. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to 7

9 supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 8 Documents sufficient to identify revenues and/or profits that You have derived from endorsements or sponsorships, by year, from January 1, 2008 to the present. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 8 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 8. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 9 Documents sufficient to identify any endorsement or sponsorship agreements You have entered into between January 1, 2008 and the present. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 9 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 9. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 10 All Documents and Communications concerning any financial loss, injury or damage, financial or otherwise, that You allege that You have suffered as a result of the TOUR's decision to discipline You or any other alleged misconduct by the TOUR complained of in this action. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 10 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 10. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the ground it seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. 8

10 DEMAND NO. 11 All Documents and Communications concerning Your endorsement or sponsorship agreement with Hopkins Golf, including the negotiations that culminated in that agreement. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 11 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 11. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 12 All Documents and Communications concerning the escrowing of Your earnings by the TOUR. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 12 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 12. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 13 All Documents and Communications concerning the "public ridicule and humiliation" that You allege that You have suffered, as set forth in paragraph 104 of the Complaint. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 13 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 13. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and 9

11 control and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged DEMAND NO. 14 All Communications between You and any Person, including any TOUR member or any representative of a media source or publication, concerning (i) Deer Antler Spray; (ii) IGF-l; (iii) SWATS; or (iv) the TOUR's decision to impose discipline against You. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 14 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 14. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 15 All Documents and Communications other than those provided by or to TOUR concerning any allegation or claim that You, at any time, have (i) violated the rules of any golf organization, event organizer or other governing or sanctioning body; or (ii) attempted to gain an unfair competitive advantage relative to other golfers. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 15 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 15. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has 10

12 possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 16 All Documents and Communications concerning discipline imposed against You by the Southeast Asia Golf Federation, including discipline imposed on You concerning Your conduct at the Indonesian Open. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 16 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 16. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 17 All Documents and Communications concerning discipline imposed against You by the Australian PGA. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 17 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 17. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is 11

13 vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. DEMAND NO. 18 All Documents and Communications concerning any discipline that any golf organization, event organizer or other governing or sanctioning body has imposed against You, to the extent such Documents and Communications are not produced in Your responses to the document requests above. RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 18 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 18. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it is vague, unduly burdensome, seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control, seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence and seeks production of information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, nonprivileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. 12

14 DEMAND NO. 19 All editions of The Greensheet that You have received from the TOUR since January 1, RESPONSE TO DEMAND NO. 19 Plaintiff repeats and incorporates his General Objections with respect to Demand No. 19. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Demand on the grounds it seeks the production of documents over which Defendant has possession, custody and control and seeks the production of materials that are not relevant to any issue in this litigation or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections or limiting his right to supplement his Response, Plaintiff avers that he will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to this Demand, if any, located as a result of a reasonable search. Dated New York, New York April 3, 2014 PETER R. GINSBERG LAW, LLC By By _s/ Peter R. Ginsberg Peter R. Ginsberg Christopher R. Deubert 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY (646) pginsberg@prglaw.com cdeubert@prglaw.com ROSENBLUM & REISMAN P.C. Jeffrey S. Rosenblum, pro hac vice _s/ Jeffrey S. Rosenblum 80 Monroe Avenue, Suite 950 Memphis, TN (901) jeffr@randrfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Vijay Singh 13