On March 2, 2022, the Court issued an order striking defendant’s answer and counterclaims and directing that plaintiff file a note of issue for an inquest by April 1, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 72).

When plaintiff failed to file a note of issue by the deadline, the Court directed plaintiff, again, to file a note of issue by May 25, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 74).

Plaintiff failed to do so.

Therefore, this Court assumes that plaintiff has no interest in pursuing this case and will mark this case disposed.

Check if Appropriate: Other (Specify

Specifically, Plaintiff Sovereign Cape Cod Investors, LLC (“SCCI”) claims Defendant Eugene A. Bartow Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Bartow”) did not secure adequate commercial property insurance, as SCCI claims it requested Bartow to do, before SCCI’s commercial property sustained significant water damage, leaving SCCI uninsured and “under water.” Before the Court at this time are two motions: one to compel document production and a second to quash non-party subpoenas.

On the other hand, the “‘work product [doctrine] does not apply to’ documents that are prepared ‘in the ordinary course of business or that would have been created in essentially the same form irrespective of the litigation.’” Rubie’s Costume Co., Inc. v. Kangaroo Mfg., Inc., CV 16-6517 (SJF) (AKT), 2018 WL 4864833, at *3 (E.D.N.Y Sept. 28, 2018) (quoting Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1202).

It is beyond cavil that “‘[t]he party asserting work-product immunity bears the burden of establishing that it applies.’” United States v. Town of Oyster Bay, 14-CV-2317 (GRB)(SIL), 2022 WL 34586, at *4 (E.D.N.Y Jan. 3, 2022) (brackets in original) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v.

Because this case features an insurance dispute—adding a layer of complexity to the work product analysis—it is incumbent upon Bartow, the party asserting the privilege,2 to “demonstrate by specific and competent evidence that the documents were created in anticipation of litigation.” Id. (citation omitted).

To have standing to challenge a non-party subpoena, the movant must have “some personal right or privilege with regard to the documents sought.” 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2459 (3d ed. 2008); see Rodal v. Mass.

The letter also provided that counsel for defendants could not consent to a judgment against it because there was no one to “authorize such a decision on its behalf” and the company “will not produce anyone.” Plaintiff asked that this Court strike the answer, counterclaims, and third-party complaint.

Instead, counsel for defendant emailed this Part advising that “I have a long planned vacation next week.

Counsel for defendant represented that the client has been unresponsive to all inquiries regarding discovery and depositions and argued that plaintiff should have to make a motion for the relief requested.

Counsel for defendant cannot represent that the company is “defunct” and that there is no one to authorize important decisions, and still attempt to prolong this case.

There is no reason for plaintiff to move to strike the answer, counterclaim and third party complaint if defendant’s counsel has already represented to this Court that there is no way that defendant can oppose – there is no one there.

I submit this Affirmation in support of Plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to CPLR § 2307, for the Court to So Order the attached subpoena to be served upon Suffolk County Probation Department.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, which was filed September 8, 2020, is attached hereto as Exhibit B and describes in detail the events surrounding Plaintiff’s claims.

As alleged therein, the Defendants’ negligence and misconduct caused the Plaintiff to sustain serious and permanent personal injuries as a result of being sexually abused as a child by a teacher under the employ of the Defendant Plainville-Old Bethpage Central School.

Upon information and belief, there were sixteen (16) prior allegations involving Mr. Glaser and minors beginning as early as 1968, which are mentioned in the pre-sentencing report provided to Judge Thomas V. Mallon.

Thus, Plaintiff seeks to obtain records from Suffolk County Probation Department, which are highly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of child sexual abuse by Mr. Glaser.

Defendant.

~ asewera serertstaniheinnineaioirannertnicainicreemnieeimenermnevnnensninti LEONARD D. STEINMAN,d.

Plaintiff's motions pursuant to CPLR§ 2307 for the court to issue Subpeenas Duces Teeum to various municipal entities are granted without opposition, The court has, simultaneous with this Decision and Order, executed the proposed subpoenas submitted as Exhibit A to each motion.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this court.

One week prior to the conference, on February 15, 2022, plaintiff and third-party defendant filed a letter advising that counsel for defendants represented that Berry Street market is “defunct” and that there is “no one to depose and no one to provide documents” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 69).

The letter also provided that counsel for defendants could not consent to a judgment against it because there was no one to “authorize such a decision on its behalf” and the company “will not produce anyone.” Plaintiff asked that this Court strike the answer, counterclaims, and third-party complaint.

This Court notes that, in response to the invitation to attend the conference, counsel for emailed this part advising that “I have a long planned vacation next week.

Can we reschedule the conference for the following week?” Although this Court understands that personal conflicts sometimes arise, this Court also notes that on December 9, 2021, the parties submitted a stipulation agreeing to an on or before date for defendant’s deposition and that “a compliance conference is scheduled for February 22, 2022 at 10:30AM.” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 67).

If defendant does not appear for the conference, then this Court shall strike the answer, counterclaims, and third-party complaint.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 2, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73 were read on this motion to/for

Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that the instant motion is moot pursuant to plaintiffs’ notice of discontinuance.

wenannananennnnnnnelexX UPONthe Affirmation of David G. Skillman dated January 17, 2022, the Affidavit of Russell Abrams dated January 17, 2022, and uponall of the prior pleadings and proceedings had herein, LETanyparty show causebefore this Court, at an IAS Part _3_ thereof, to be held at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 60 Centre Street, via a virtual hearing, on the Psday of FebrUa022, at _10:30° a.m. (with instructions for parties to participate remotely to be providedprior thereto), or as soon thereafter as counsel maybe heard, whyan Order should not be entered, pursuant to CPLR Article 63, 22 NYCRR § 216.1, and Section K of the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases, granting respondent Russell Abrams’s motion by order to show cause foran order: 1, Finding that goodcause exists to redact confidential information in Dkt. Nos. 38,

4, Directing Petitionersto re-file the Filings with approved redactions, and Granting any other furtherrelief as the Court deemsjust and proper.

ORDERED,that pending the determination of this application, the County Clerk Shall maintain the “restricted status”of the Filings; ORDERED,that a copyof this Order, together with all the papers upon whichitis based, shall be served onall parties by NYSCEFon or before the 22d day of January , 2022, whichshall be deemed goodandsufficient service thereof:

te ORDERED,that opposition papers, if any shall be served by NYSCEFonor before the 3d day of February , 2022.

ORDEREDthat, unless otherwise instructed by the Court, no appearanceis necessary on Februarya 2022 and the motion will be decided on submission.

The parties to this action agree as follows: Index No. _____________________ Motion Calendar No. ____________

Petitioners, At an IAS Part 3 of the Supreme Court held in and for the County of New York at the Courthouse located at 60 Centre Street, New York, NY, on the ______ day of _______ 2022.

UPON the Affirmation of David G. Skillman dated January 17, 2022, the Affidavit of Russell Abrams dated January 17, 2022, and upon all of the prior pleadings and proceedings had herein,

LET any party show cause before this Court, at an IAS Part ___ thereof, to be held at the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 60 Centre Street, via a virtual hearing, on the _____ day of _______, 2022, at _______ a.m./p.m.

(with instructions for parties to participate remotely to be provided prior thereto), or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an Order should not be entered, pursuant to CPLR Article 63, 22 NYCRR § 216.1, and Section K of the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases, granting respondent Russell Abrams’s motion by order to show cause for an order:

Finding that good cause exists to redact confidential information in Dkt. Nos. 38, 43–45 (the “Filings”), currently filed with “restricted status;”

I am familiar with the facts set forth herein and submit this affidavit in support of an application to seal Dkt. Nos. 38, 43–45 (the “Filings”).

The Filings consist of (i) a 2020 Q1 Aracar Investor Letter (Dkt. No. 43), (ii) a November 30, 2020 Shareholder Update (Dkt. No. 44), (iii) a March 5, 2018 stock purchase agreement between Aracar and one of its investors (Dkt. No. 45), and (iv) the January 11, 2022 affidavit of petitioner Marcus Abrams, introducing these documents and quoting them at length (Dkt. No. 38).

To publicize these documents, in a dispute in which Aracar is not involved, would give Aracar’s competitors an unfair insight into Aracar’s financial strength and business operations, and damage Aracar’s competitive advantage.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Filings remain under seal, so that non-party Aracar is not competitively disadvantaged by their public disclosure.

*Signature Page Follows* I affirm this 17th day of January, 2022, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that I am physically located outside the geographic boundaries of the United States, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law.

No. 2 David G. Skillman, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of New York, affirms the following facts under penalties of perjury.

I am a partner at the law firm of Tuttle Yick LLP, attorneys for Respondents in the above-referenced action.

202.7(f), on January 14 at 5:32 pm, I gave notice to the attorneys for Petitioners by email of my intent to file this application on January 18, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. at the Ex Parte Office of the New York Supreme Court, New York County, and offered counsel the opportunity to have the parties voluntarily provide the relief sought by this application or to appear in response.

No prior application for this or any similar relief has been made in this case, other than the underlying Motion.

WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this application be handled on an expedited emergency basis.