Opinion
105584/06.
Decided May 19, 2008.
Plaintiffs move, by order to show cause, for an order compelling defendants' production of certain documents, notwithstanding any claim of attorney-client or work-product privileges.Defendants partially oppose the motion, which is granted to the extent set forth below.
BACKGROUND
This action seeks to recover damages in connection with the alleged wrongful ouster of plaintiffs from their role in a multi-million dollar real estate development project. As the basis for the action is relevant to the discovery issues before the court, the facts as alleged in the complaint, are summarized below.
Plaintiffs Gary Don ("Don") and Lawrence Gerstein ("Gerstein") were partners in commercial real estate development business and in furtherance of this business, used plaintiff New York Developers Collaborative, LLC ("NYDC"), as their corporate vehicle. At issue here is a deal for the purchase and development of a site located on the Avenue of the Americas between 30th and 31st Street in Manhattan ("the Property"). Plaintiff allege that in 2005, they identified the Property as an area for development of a residential and commercial real estate project ("the Project"), and subsequently generated a document summarizing their business plan, that later became a Confidential Memorandum.
As plaintiffs did not have the financing to pay for the Project, they sought various business partners. In April 2005, a broker hired by the plaintiffs found as potential partner, defendant Mark Junger ("Junger"), who signed a confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement (the "CNC Agreement") on behalf of himself and his company defendant Rosma Development LLC ("Rosma"), which was countersigned by Don. Under the CNC Agreement, defendants Junger and Rosma and their affiliates or persons to whom they make disclosures agreed to "hold Confidential Information (regarding the Project) in the strictest confidence and [not to] contact the owner of the Property to promote participate or engage in any business which is or may be competitive with the business of NYDC at the Property, including, without limitation any acquisition, financing, purchase or other transaction involving the Property (other than through NYDC). . . ."
In May 2005, plaintiffs met with Junger and his partner, defendant Moses Rosner ("Rosner"), of defendant MNM Investors Group, LLC ("MNM") who agreed to provide the required capital amount of $20 million, through a partner. Plaintiffs allege that before permitting Junger and Rosner to meet with the sellers, and after a May 13, 2005 meeting involving extensive negotiations, Don and Gerstein and Junger and Rosner agreed to be partners and entered into a joint venture relationship regarding the acquisition of the Site and development of the Project.
A Joint Venture Agreement ("the JV Agreement") dated May 13, 2005, which was signed by Don, Gerstein, Junger and Rosner provided inter alia, that Junger, Rosner, and MNM at their sole option would decide whether plaintiffs would make a $500,000 capital contribution and receive an 18% ownership interest or not make a capital contribution and receive a 12% ownership interest. It was also agreed that plaintiffs would receive 40 % and Junger, Rosner and MNM would receive 60% of all projected net profits (which was $68,000,000 at the time the JV Agreement was entered).
The complaint alleges that entry in the JV Agreement did not affect the confidentiality and non-circumvention provisions of the Confidentiality Memorandum and the CNC Agreement and, in fact, defendants Junger and Rosner were told that they were not to disclose the Confidentiality Memorandum or proprietary development plans to any third person without such third person first entering into confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement.
During the week the JV Agreement was signed, Junger and Rosner informed Don and Gerstein that defendant Baruch Singer ("Singer") was the partner who had the needed capital and who would be participating as a partner in the JV Agreement to purchase the Site and to develop the Project. Plaintiffs allege that before Singer was provided with any information about the purchase of the Site and the Project, Singer entered into the CNC Agreement, and that after he signed the CNC Agreement (hereinafter "The Singer CNC Agreement"), they gave him the Confidentiality Memorandum and the proprietary development information.
On May 24, 2005, a meeting regarding the purchase of the Property was held between Don, Gerstein, Junger, Rosner, Singer, and the sellers and their representatives from the brokerage firm, and the parties agreed to a $72 million purchase price. Other meetings regarding the Project were also held during May and June of 2005. Singer's attorney Andrew Alberstein, Esq. ("Alberstein") and Goldberg, Weprin Ulster attended these meetings.
In mid-June 2005, defendants tried to renegotiate the terms of the JV Agreement with plaintiffs to curtail plaintiffs' participation and decrease plaintiffs' economic return. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants sought to limit plaintiffs' ownership interest to 7% but later increased it to 9% and then limited to profits from sales of residential units, and to have plaintiffs relinquish their right to the agreed-upon 40% of net profits. If plaintiffs refused to accept the new terms, defendants threatened not to honor their commitments with respect to the Project.
When plaintiffs refused to accept these new terms, it is alleged that defendants, along with Singer's counsel Alberstein, ceased providing plaintiffs with information, data or updates regarding negotiations with the sellers, and that once it became clear that plaintiffs would not agree to substantial modifications in the JV Agreement, defendants took steps to oust plaintiffs from the purchase and development of the Project.
It is further alleged that in August of 2005, Singer met with plaintiffs and offered them a $3.5 million dollar pay-off, and that when plaintiffs refused, defendants ceased any further communications with plaintiffs. According to the complaint, in October 2005, defendant Herald Square Development LLC ("Herald") was established by defendants Singer, Junger, Rosner, Rosma and MNM for the purpose of purchasing the Site from the sellers, and in February 2006, defendants completed the purchase of the Property.
DISCOVERY MOTION
Plaintiffs move to compel the production of certain documents which were sought in their Second Request for Production of Documents dated September 26, 2007, and were withheld from production on the grounds of privilege or relevance. The motion was made following a compliance conference held on November 8, 2007, at which plaintiffs raised the issue of the non-production of certain of these documents, and the court directed that any relief by plaintiffs be made by moving by order to show cause returnable on November 15, 2007, and that on the return date defendants were to provide the documents for which a claim of privilege was made to the court for in-camera inspection.
Defendants Singer and Herald (together "the Singer defendants") oppose the majority of relief sought by plaintiffs. Defendants Junger, Rosner, Rosma and MNM (together "the Junger-Rosner defendants"), although they have not withheld any documents on the basis of privilege, join certain aspects of the Singer defendants' opposition and also oppose the production of certain documents on relevancy grounds.
Documents Withheld as Subject to the Attorney-Client or Work-Product Privileges
In analyzing whether documents are properly withheld on the grounds of attorney-client and/or work-product privileges the following principles apply.
"Because of the strong public policy favoring full disclosure, the burden of proving each element of a privilege rests the party asserting it." Spectrum Systems Intern'l Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 157 AD2d 444, 447 (1st Dept 1990), aff'd as modified, 78 NY2d 371 (1991). "In order to raise a valid claim of [attorney-client] privilege, the party seeking to withhold the information must show that it was a confidential communication' made between the attorney and the client in the context of legal advice or services." Bertalo's Restaurant Inc. v Exchange Ins. Co., 240 AD2d 452, 454 (2d Dept), lv. dismissed 91 NY2d 848 (1997) . A communication is not privileged if it is made known to third parties. People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335 (1982), cert denied 460 US 1047 (1983). In addition, facts in a client's possession are not insulated from discovery simply as a result of being reported to counsel. Rossi v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York, 73 NY2d 588, 594 (1989).
An attorney's work product is entitled to absolute immunity (CPLR 3101 [c]). "Lawyer's interviews, mental impressions and personal beliefs procured in the course of litigation are deemed to be an attorney's work product." Corcoran v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., 151 AD2d 443, 445 (1st Dept 1989). The work product privilege has been construed narrowly. Zimmerman v. Nassau Hospital, 76 AD2d 921, 922 (2d Dept 1980). Thus, to be shielded from discovery based on the work-product privilege, it must be shown that the materials in issue are "uniquely the products of a lawyer's learning or professional skills." Aetna Cas and Surety Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 263 AD2d 367, 368 (1st Dept 1999), lv dismissed, 94 NY2d 875 (2000) (citations omitted).
Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are subject to a conditional privilege (CPLR 3101[d]). To demonstrate that the anticipation of litigation privilege under CPLR 3101(d) is applicable, it must be shown that "the material [was] prepared solely in anticipation of litigation." Agovino v. Taco Bell 5083, 225 AD2d 569 (2d Dept 1996). When such a showing is made, materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are immune from disclosure unless a party shows "substantial need" and is unable to duplicate them "without undue hardship." CPLR 3101(d)(2); Corcoran v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co., 151 AD2d 443, 445 (1st Dept 1989); Lamitie v. Emerson Electric Company-White Rodgers Div., 208 AD2d 1081 (3d Dept 1994).
1. Notes Taken By the Singer Defendants' Attorneys
Plaintiffs seek notes taken by the Singer defendants' attorneys Alberstein and David Galanter ("Galanter") of Goldberg, Weprin Ulster during the May 24, 2005 meeting and during any meeting or telephone call with the Junger-Rosner defendants regarding the Property from April 2005 to the present. In support of the request for meeting notes, plaintiffs submit Don's affidavit in which he states, inter alia, that he observed both Alberstein and Galanter taking notes at the May 24, 2005 meeting which he states concerned commercial aspects of the Project .
In opposition, the Singer defendants point out that although the production of the notes was objected to in their response to the document request as subject to the attorney-client privilege, the privilege log does not identify any responsive documents and thus none were withheld on the grounds of privilege. With respect to notes allegedly taken by Alberstein, the Singer defendants submit Alberstein's affirmation in which he states that he searched his files and has not been able to locate any notes responsive to the request, but that in the event such notes are located, they will be produced.
As for the notes allegedly taken by Galanter, the Singer defendants submit Galanter's affirmation in which he states that he did not take notes at the May 24, 2005 meeting, or any other meeting he attended or during any telephone conversations with either Junger or Rosner.Since the court cannot require the production of documents that do not exist or cannot be located, this aspect of the motion to compel is granted only to the extent of requiring the Singer defendants to produce notes taken by Alberstein at the May 24, 2006 meeting if, and when, such notes are located.
2. Correspondence Between Singer Defendants' Attorneys Alberstein and Galanter and the Junger-Rosner Defendants
Plaintiffs next seek documents concerning correspondence between Singer defendants' attorneys, Alberstein and Galanter, and the Junger-Rosner defendants, and to any other third-party when the Junger-Rosner defendants were copied, including electronic or email correspondence.
The Singer defendants assert that the correspondence with Junger is immune from disclosure based on the attorney-client privilege, asserting that since Junger acted as Singer's agent in connection with Property, communications between Junger and Alberstein are protected by the attorney-client privilege. In support of their assertion that Junger was Singer's agent the Singer defendants rely on Singer's affirmation in which he states that Junger acted as his agent in connection with the Property by assisting him in evaluating the development of the Property. Alberstein and Galanter make identical statements in their affirmations. The Singer defendants also argue that correspondence between Anabella Epstein ("Epstein"), a former assistant to Alberstein, and Junger are subject to the attorney-client privilege since as indicated in the Alberstein affirmation, Epstein worked under Alberstein's supervision.
As for correspondence with Rosner, the Singer defendants submit affirmations from Alberstein and Galanter stating that no such correspondence exists. With respect to correspondence sought on which the Junger-Rosner defendants were copied, according to the affirmations of Alberstein and Galanter, all such documents have been produced.
In their opposition, the Junger-Rosner defendants assert, without explanation, that the correspondence between Singer's attorneys and Junger would be privileged if the communication occurred during a time when the Junger-Rosner defendants were contemplating entering the transaction for the sale of the Property. Notably, however, the Junger-Rosner defendants do not claim that Junger acted as Singer's agent in connection with the Property.
The Junger-Rosner defendants also assert that the communication would be privileged if the communication related to any of the Junger-Rosner defendants' other real estate deals with Singer in which Singer's attorneys represented the Junger-Rosner defendants. However, none of the documents at issue fall into this category.
In reply, plaintiffs argue that the Singer defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that Junger was Singer's agent in connection with the Property. Plaintiffs also point out that in response to its interrogatory which asked that Junger to identify any relationship between him and Singer with respect to the Property, including any agency relationship, Junger objected on the grounds that it assumed facts which were not true. Plaintiff further argue that the defendants have not shown that the documents at issue constitute confidential communications.
The attorney-client privilege may extend to the agent of a client where "the communications are intended to facilitate the provision of legal services to the client." Delta Financial Corp. v. Morrison , 15 Misc 3d 308, 317 (Sup Ct Nassau Co. 2007) (citations omitted). For the so-called agency exception to apply, it must be shown that client (1) had a "reasonable expectation of confidentiality under the circumstances" ( People v. Osorio, 75 NY2d 80,84 (1989), and (2) disclosure to the third party was necessary for the client to obtain informed legal advice. National Education Training Group, Inc. v. Skillsoft Corp., 1999 WL 378337, *4 (SDNY 1999). It has been held that "[t]he necessity' element means more than just useful and convenient but requires the involvement be indispensable or serve some specialized purpose in facilitating attorney client communications." Id.
To meet their burden of establishing that the Junger acted as Singer's agent such that the attorney-client privilege applies to the communications at issue, defendants, as the proponent of the privilege, cannot rely on conclusory assertions but must come forth with "competent evidence that the claims of privilege are well-founded." Id., at 316, citing, von Bulow by Auersperg v. von Bulow, 811 F2d 136, 141 (2d Cir), cert denied sub nom, Reynods v. von Bulow by Auersperg, 481 US 1015 (1987).
In this case, Singer's conclusory statement, and that of Alberstein and Galanter, that Junger was Singer's agent in connection with the Property as he assisted Singer in evaluating the development of the Property is insufficient to meet this burden. In addition, the Singer defendants do not assert that Alberstein's communication with Junger was necessary for the facilitation of legal services. Moreover, a review of the documents at issue, which are the first five documents identified on the Singer defendants' privilege log, reveals that only the fifth document contains any communication that might be protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, since the Singer defendants have not demonstrated that Junger was Singer's agent or that disclosure to Junger was intended to facilitate the provision of legal services to Singer, any privileged attached to this communication has been waived since the correspondence was sent to Junger.
Accordingly, the Singer defendants must produce to plaintiffs the first five documents identified on their privilege log.
3. Handwritten Redactions to Produced Documents
Plaintiffs next seek hand-written redactions made on a series of emails from third parties to Alberstein and others and on a letter from Alberstein to the attorneys for one of the sellers. These documents, which are attached as Exhibit I to plaintiffs' order to show cause, contain redactions of the notes with a notation beside them indicating that the redacted materials are subject to the work-product privilege.
In opposition, the Singer defendants assert that the notes at issue were taken by Alberstein during his telephone conversations with Singer, and are therefore subject to the attorney-client privilege. While the Singer defendants state that Alberstein's affirmation supports their assertion, a review of the affirmation indicates that Alberstein does not specifically address the handwritten notes at issue, nor do the Singer defendants specify how the notes reflect either a confidential communication in the context of legal advice or services or work that is uniquely the product of the lawyer's learning or professional skills. See Bertalo's Restaurant Inc. v Exchange Ins. Co., 240 AD2d at 454 Aetna Cas and Surety Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 263 AD2d at 368. Additionally, a review of the redacted notes reveals that they do not appear to contain either confidential attorney-client communications or attorney-work product.
Accordingly, the Singer defendants are directed to turn over unredacted copies of the documents at issue.
4. Other Documents Withheld Based On Attorney Work Product Privilege
Plaintiffs also seek the following documents identified on page four of the privilege log which were withheld based on the attorney work product privilege: (1) correspondence from Galanter to Alberstein dated June 2, 2005, regarding the Property, (2) list of attendees at pre-closing conference at Herrick Feinstein, LLP, (3) correspondence between Galanter and Sean O'Donnell of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Feld LLP regarding the Property, (4) miscellaneous notes recorded by attorneys for Goldberg, Weprin Ustin, LLP at the February 26, 2006 closing, (5) the closing statement prepared by Goldberg, Weprin Ustin, LLP. Defendants have withdrawn the claim of privilege except with respect to the first document.
As for the first document, plaintiffs argue that the Singer defendants have not met their burden of showing that the correspondence is immune from disclosure as attorney work product or as materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that as of
June 2, 2005, it could not been anticipated that their would be litigation regarding the Property.
The Singer defendants counter that the document contains Galanter's mental impressions made in anticipation of litigation. However, defendants have not sufficiently established that the document was prepared in anticipation of litigation as they provide no substantiation for their position, and Galanter does not address the reasons he wrote the letter in his affirmation. See Mavrikis v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 196 AD2d 689 (1st Dept 1993) (conclusory affidavit that document was prepared in anticipation of litigation is insufficient to establish privilege). In addition, the court has reviewed the document in-camera and finds that it does not appear to have been written in anticipation of litigation or contain Galanter's mental impressions regarding the subject.
Accordingly, the Singer defendants are directed to turn over the five documents identified on page four of their privilege log.
Documents Withheld on Relevancy Grounds
Defendants argue that plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents withheld on the basis of relevancy is beyond the scope of the November 8, 2007 order and should be denied. This argument is without merit. While the November 8, 2007 order provided the dates by which plaintiffs were to seek production of documents withheld on the grounds of privilege, it did not restrict plaintiffs from seeking additional relief.
CPLR 3101(a) provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." The words "material and necessary" are "liberally interpreted to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on a controversy which will assist in sharpening the issue at trial." Roman Catholic Church of Good Shepherd v. Tempco Systems, 202 AD2d 257, 258 (1st Dept 1994). Disclosure is thus not limited to "evidence directly related to the issues in the pleadings." Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 NY2d 403, 408 (1968). "[T]he burden of showing that disclosure is improper is upon the party asserting it. . ." Roman Catholic Church of Good Shepherd v. Tempco Systems, 202 AD2d at 258.
1. Documents Relating to Refsnart Corp.
Plaintiffs seek the production of the organizational documents of Refsnart Corp. ("Refsnart"), which is the entity that initially purchased the Property from the Sellers, and then transferred the Property to Herald in December 2005. Plaintiffs argue that as Refsnart is the corporate vehicle used by Singer to acquire the Property in violation of their rights as alleged in the complaint details regarding its existence and ownership are essential to the action. Moreover, plaintiffs assert that they plan to add Refsnart as a defendant.
Defendants counter that as Refsnart is not owned by Singer but instead is an entity wholly owned by Goldberg, Weprin Ustin to purchase and hold property, the request for production of Refsnart's organizational documents should be denied.
Defendants' argument is unavailing. Notwithstanding that Singer does not own Refsnart, based on Refsnart's role as the initial purchaser of the Property, its organizational documents are discoverable as material and relevant to the issues in this action.
2.Tower 56 LLC, Tower 56 Owner LLC Organizational Documents
Plaintiffs request organizational documents for Tower 56 LLC and Tower 56 Owner LLC.In support of this request, plaintiffs points to a letter dated June 2005 that was produced in discovery which sets forth proposed agreement between Rosma (collectively referring to Rosner and Junger) and Singer concerning the acquisition of the Property. The letter agreement provides:
While Rosner and Junger signed the letter, signature line for Singer is blank, and the contemplated agreement was never carried out.
1. Singer shall cause Refsnart or another entity chosen by him ("Buyer") to execute or attempt in good faith to execute a contract of sale to acquire the Property ("the Contract") and shall make a contract deposit required thereby. In doing so, Buyer shall act as nominee for both Singer and Rosma.
2. Upon execution of the Contract, Singer and Rosma shall enter into an operating agreement for a limited liability company to be formed by Singer and Rosma ("the LLC"), which operating agreement shall be substantially similar to the operating agreement that Singer and Rosma have agreed for the limited liability company known as Tower 56, LLC, except that the name of the entity and certain details contained therein and pertaining specifically to that transaction shall be amended to refer to the transaction involving the Property.
3. Subsequent to the formation of the LLC and the execution of the operating agreement, the Contract shall be assigned to the LLC and the transaction shall proceed as provide for in the Contract and the operating agreement.
(emphasis supplied).
Plaintiffs assert that the June 2005 letter demonstrates that Singer and Junger-Rosner defendants were planning on acquiring the Property in June 2005 in contravention of the JV Agreement and contrary to the purported position taken by the Junger-Rosner defendants that they were not involved in the acquisition of the Property. Plaintiffs further assert that under these circumstances, the operating agreement for Tower 56, LLC referred to in the June 2005 letter and the organizational documents of Tower 56, LLC are relevant to the collaboration between the Singer defendants and the Junger-Rosner defendants, an issue which is central to plaintiffs' claims.
With respect to Tower 56 Owner LLC, which plaintiffs identified during their search of the records of the New York Department of State, plaintiffs assert that the similarity between the name of this entity and Tower 56, LLC suggests that they are related thus making information regarding Tower 56 Owner LLC subject to disclosure.
In opposition, the Singer defendants argue that there is no connection between Tower 56, LLC and the Property, and since Tower 56, LLC has nothing to do with the subject of the action its organizational documents are irrelevant and not discoverable. In support of this position, the Singer defendants rely on the statement in Singer's affirmation that "Tower 56, LLC owns a property located at 45-46 Pearson Street in Long Island City, New York and has no absolutely no relationship to the property at issue." With respect to Tower 56 Owner, LLC, Singer states that he has no knowledge of or interest in this entity.
The Junger-Rosner defendants also argue that organizational documents for Tower 56, LLC and Tower 56 Owner, LLC are irrelevant and not discoverable. Specifically, the Junger-Rosner defendants assert that although under the June 2005 proposal the parties contemplated using the operating agreement for Tower 56, LLC as a model for an operating agreement for the purchase of the Property, that the transaction was not carried out, and the Property was eventually purchased by Herald, a company formed by Singer. Thus, the Junger-Rosner defendants assert that contrary to plaintiffs' argument, the proposed agreement does not show that they participated in the acquisition of the Property. As for Tower 56 Owner, LLC, the Junger-Rosner defendants assert that this entity is unrelated to them in any way.
The Junger-Rosner defendants also assert that at a discovery conference the Special Master ruled that defendants need not produce documents regarding other real estate deals that defendants had with each other. However, the Junger-Rosner defendants fail to submit a copy of an order to substantiate this assertion. Morever, the organizational documents regarding Tower 56, LLC relate to the Property, and not other deals between the defendants, insofar as the entity is mentioned in the June 2005 proposal regarding the purchase of the Property.
The court finds that defendants have not met their burden of showing that the disclosure of the organizational documents related to Tower 56, LLC would be improper. Specifically, although the proposed June 2005 agreement which was to use the operating agreement for Tower 56, LLC as a model did not go through, the terms of the proposal are relevant and material to defendants' alleged intent to purchase the Property without including plaintiffs in the deal.
In contrast, as defendants have submitted evidence that they have no connection to, or knowledge of, Tower 56 Owners, LLC, it would be improper to order the production of this entity's organizational documents based solely on the similarity of its name with that of Tower 56 LLC. Accordingly, production of these documents will not be directed at this time.
3. Documents Relating to Sale of Property By Herald
Plaintiffs seek documents relating to details of the sale of the Property by Herald, asserting that these documents as they may reveal the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction that are material and relevant to this action, including any amounts received by the Junger-Rosner defendants as a result of the transaction, references to plaintiffs and their claims against defendants, and provisions for indemnification by defendants of the current owners of the Property in connection with the instant litigation. Plaintiffs also assert that these documents may be relevant to whether defendants wrongfully disclosed or transferred to the current owners of the Property proprietary information developed by plaintiffs for the development of the Property.
The Singer defendants oppose the production of the documents, asserting that the fact that Herald sold the Property for $140 million is publicly available and relates to damages as opposed to liability. The Singer defendants also argue that the documents are irrelevant since the complaint does not allege that they wrongful disseminated proprietary information to the purchaser or that the Property was wrongful transferred despite the existence of a Notice of Pendency.
Contrary to the Singer defendants' position, the court finds that documents related to Herald's sale of the Property are sufficiently relevant to the facts at issue in this dispute to warrant their production. Specifically, the transactional documents may provide relevant information as to who ultimately benefitted from the deal to acquire the Property, whether plaintiffs' plans for the development of the Property were misappropriated, and the defendants' assessment of their potential exposure to liability in this action.
CONCLUSION
In view of the above, it is
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent set forth herein; and it is further
ORDERED that within fifteen days of the date of this decision and order, the Singer defendants shall turn over to plaintiffs: (1) the first five documents identified on the Singer defendants' privilege log; (2) unredacted copies of the documents attached to Exhibit I of plaintiffs' order to show cause; and (3) the five sets of documents identified on page 4 of the Singer defendants' privilege log; and it is further
ORDERED that the Singer defendants shall produce notes taken by Alberstein at the May 24, 2005 meeting, in the event such notes are located; and it is further
ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of this decision and order, the defendants shall turn over to plaintiffs (1) copies of all organizational documents for Refsnart Corp.; (2) copies of all organizational documents for Tower 56, LLC; (3) copies of all documents relating to the sale of the Property by Herald; and it is further
ORDERED that a status conference shall be held in Part 11, room 351, on June 26, 2008 at 9:30 am.
A copy of this decision and order is being mailed by my chambers to counsel for the parties.