FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2012 INDEX NO /2010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2012

Transcription

1 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/27/2012 INDEX NO /2010 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x CAROLYN LE BEL, AS EXECUTRLX OF THE ESTATE OF MARYA LEr..'NYEE, -against- MARY A. DONOVAN and DONOVAN & YEE, LLP, Plaintiff, Defendants x Index No PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' "NOTICE FOR DOCUMENTS" Plaintiff Carolyn Le Bel, as Executrix of the Estate of Marya Lenn Yee, pursuant to Article 31 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, responds to defendants' "Notice for Documents" (the "Document Request") as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, and harassing, and seeks matter not relevant to the subject matter of this action, not material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it is unduly vague or ambiguous. 3. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it seeks, in contravention of Article 31 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, documents that are not in plaintiffs possession, custody, or control.

2 <1 Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it calls for information or purports to impose obligations outside the scope of Article 31 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. 5. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it seeks information not relevant to the allegations set forth in the pleadings or to the subject matter involved in this action. 6. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it requests that plaintiff provide documents or information subject to the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or other privilege or exemption from discovery. 7. Plaintiff objects to the Document Request to the extent that it seeks information the disclosure of which is prohibited or privileged by applicable federal or state laws. 8. All documents and information provided in response to the Document Request is being produced subject to all appropriate objections, including but not limited to objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility, which would require the exclusion of any statement or document if introduced in court. All such objections and grounds are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial. Moreover, in responding to the Document Request, plaintiff does not waive any privilege or immunity, but instead reserves and relies specifically upon all such privileges and immunities. 9. These responses and objections are made subject to, and without in any way waiving or intending to waive, but on the contrary intending to reserve and reserving, all of plaintiff's rights under the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and all other applicable 2

3 procedural and substantive law, including plaintiffs right to object to any other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Document Request. RESPONSES AND ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE SPECIFIC REQUESTS Subject to the foregoing General Objections, plaintiff responds to the specific document requests as follows: Request No.1 Contracts or written agreements, including drafts of contracts or agreements whether ultimately executed or not, between or among any two or more of the following, regardless of whether there were other parties: Yee, Donovan, the Firm, Amladi, and Calvaruso. Response to Request No.1 Plaintiff objects to Request No.1 on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff additionally objects to this Request to the extent that it requests that plaintiff provide documents or information subject to privilege or exemption from discovery. Subject to the foregoing, and to the General Objections set forth above, and without prejudice thereto, plaintiff is producing herewith non-privileged documents responsive to Request No.1. 3

4 Request No.2 Documents concerning any document meeting the description of Request 1. Response to Request No.2 Plaintiff objects to Request No.2 on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff additionally objects to this Request to the extent that it requests that plaintiff provide documents or information subject to privilege or exemption from discovery. Subject to the foregoing, and to the General Objections set forth above, and without prejudice thereto, plaintiff states that at the present time plaintiff is unaware of any non-privileged documents responsive to Request No.2 that are in her possession, custody, or control. Request No.3 Documents exchanged between (i) counsel for plaintiff and (ii) defendants or any of them, or counsel for defendants, from the date of Yees death to the date of commencement of this action. Response to Request No.3 Subject to the General Objections set forth above, and without prejudice thereto, plaintiff is producing herewith documents responsive to Request No.3. Reguest No.4 Documents concerning Yee's medical bills stemming from her injury in the plane crash of 30 November

5 Subject to the General Objections set forth above, and without prejudice thereto, plaintiff is producing herewith documents responsive to Request No.4. Request No.5 Documents conceming the possibility of Yee, with or without others, joining or becoming associated with a law firm other than the Firm, July 15,1997 to the date of Yees death. Response to Request No. S. Plaintiff objects to Request No.5 on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and harassing, and seeks matter not relevant to the subject matter of this action, not material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff additionally objects to this Request to the extent that it requests that plaintiff provide documents or information subject to privilege or exemption from discovery. Request No.6 Documents exchanged between (i) Yee, plaintiff, or counsel for either, and (ii) Michael Ferber, or anyone at the accounting firm with which he was associated. Response to Request No.6 Plaintiff objects to Request No.6 on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff additionally objects to this Request to the

6 extent that it requests that plaintiff provide documents or information subject to privilege or exemption from discovery. Subject to the foregoing, and to the General Objections set forth above, and without prejudice thereto, plaintiff is producing herewith non-privileged documents responsive to Request No.6 to the extent that such documents date from the period from December 1, 2006 to date. Request No.7 Correspondence to or from Michael Ferber, or anyone at the accounting firm with which he was associated. Response to Request No.7 Plaintiff objects to Request No. 7 on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome, to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff additionally objects to this Request to the extent that it requests that plaintiff provide documents or information subject to privilege or exemption from discovery. Subject to the foregoing, and to the General Objections set forth above, and without prejudice thereto, plaintiff is producing herewith non-privileged documents responsive to Request No.7 to the extent that such documents date from the period from December 1, 2006 to date. 6

7 Dated: New York, New York January 31,2012 GALLET DREYER & BERKEY. LLP ~/) By: l'ff' / }bavid S. Douglas l Adam M. Felsenstein 845 Third Avenue - 8 th Floor New York, New York (212) Attorneys for Plaintiff DOC 7