JUNE 30.1999
FAIR
H I S TO R I C A L VA L U E
ASSETS
">
>:
CURRENT ASSETS
CASH
19,409 $ 19,409
672,351
1,834,980
95,000
2,602,331
250,000
80,000
149,188
15,501
13,069
3,250
3,132,748
92
629
575,230
1,569,638
81,253
2,226,121
250,000
80,000
149,188
15,501
13,069
3,250
2,756,538
92,629
$ 3,225,377 $ 2,849,167
$ 125,000
50,000
175,000
.125,000
50,000
175,000
2,145;195
2,320,195
2,145,195
2,320,195
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE, 1,000 SHARES AUTHORIZED
AND 385 SHARES ISSUED
RETAINED EARNINGS
894,000 894,000
11 , 1 8 2 11 , 1 8 2
SHAREHOLDERS'
EQUITY
(376,210)
905,182-
528,972
Page 1
^Mm
TELEPHONE: 212.757-0400
FAX: 212-757-2010
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED:
{_UM&:
Coot
'tfjk
usrnr,
Max Pblkenflik
MF/vm
cc: Matthew Kohel, Esq. (via e-mail)
David R. Fisher, Esq. (via e-mail)
Ms. Alexandra Couri (via e-mail)
Mr. James Couri (via e-mail)
December 3, 2012 ~
jJL
F f o m : M a x F o l k e n fl i k F
were with respect to different time periods, different contexts and often simply called for
a yes and no responses rather than repetitive responses Mr. Robbins gave.
However, additional time is necessary to fairly examine this witness. There are
many contemporaneous documents throughout the entire period on which I did not have
the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, Including documents authored by him,
documents received by him from James Couri during the period when he was
disbursing Trust funds to James Couri, notes he made of communications with Vincent
Tehan (an attorney on whose "advise" Mr. Robbins relies for defense, notes Mr.
Robbins made either contemporaneously with his transactions with James Couri or
afterwards. That requires, detailed inquiry particularly with respect to handwritten notes
which are hard to decipher.
I think Your Honor would agree that the time spent in the deposition was well
spent, and there is ample cause in this case, given Mr. Robbins' central role in the
transactions in dispute, to allow for additional examination beyond the presumptive 7
hour limit.
ResDectfulh
MF/vm
cc: Matthew Kohel, Esq. (via e-mail)
David R. Fisher, Esq. (via e-mail)
Ms. Alexandra Couri (via e-mail)
PAGE, 2 OF 5
u/27/2012 2<^63*1 ^-tg^-lftPHM Document32 Filed 11/28/12 Pagefofl
0
cozen MEMO
O'CONNOR
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
16m FLOOR 45 BROADWAY NEW YORK. NY 10006-3792 212.509.9400 800.437.7Q40 212.509.9492 FAX v/vw.co zen.com
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
November 27, 2012
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
VIA FACSIMILE (212.805.6724) DOC #:
DATE FILED:: \ \ | ^ | yo\>
Matthew D. Kohel
Direct Phone (212) 908-1287
Direct Pax (212) 202-6230
nikohe!@cozen.com
iii^J
Hon. Frank Maas
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 740
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re: Couri v. McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, ct ai.//> I f
q .n
v i7.n.v.7?7n
S
D .m
N . Y.
1 2 - c v - 2 2 2rrpfiVFTun
0 ( T P G FMtu
M ) * vplc*-**
WA - - *-
"* - ( ^
Dear Judge Maas:
-f^ a_
Mo^^, - -^JliJccu^ f U A tG6Tt ty^7 // -
I write on behalf of the defendants requesting leave to file a motion to designate four
exhibits attached to the Complaint as Confidential and to have them removed from Pacer, and
additionally, for a two-week extension of the deadlines related to expert discovery.
The Defendants Seek Leave to Move for an Order Desienatinz Documents as Confidential
The defendants respectfully request that the Court grant them leave to seek an Order
designating Exhibits F, I, J and K to the Complaint as Confidential, and consequently, have them
removed from Pacer. Exhibits F, I, J and K. were produced to the plaintiff prior to the filing of
the Complaint during the parties' confidential settlement negotiations. Although the parties did
not enter into a confidentiality agreement before this action was filed, the defendants produced
them as part of extensive pre-litigation settlement discussions that lasted for nearly one year.
Accordingly, those documents should not have been attached to the Complaint. See Fed. R.
Evid. 408; Team Air Express, Inc. v. A. Hejfco Tech., Inc., 2008 WL 3165892, at *9 fii. 8
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2008) ("documents produced during settlement negotiations are not
admissible to prove liability or damages"). In addition, those documents should not have been
attached to the Complaint because each contains private financial information.
NEWYORK DOWNTOWN\2504991\I
PAGE 3
n/27/2012 2caSel8v^BeB-fl*65fitt Document32 Filed 11/28/12 Page2of4
OF 5
OF 5
Current
Deadline
Proposed Extension
Item
Jan. 4,2013
Jan. 18,2013
Jan. 23,2013
Feb. 6,2013
Feb. 8,2013
Feb. 22,2013
Feb. 8,2013
Feb. 22,2013
The defendants thank the Court for its courtesies and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
MDK
NEWYORK DOWNTOWNV2S04991M
11/27/2012 2
NnWYORK_DOWNTOWN\2504991\l
OF 5
USDC SDNY
FOLKENFLIK & MPGERITY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DOC#:
1500 BKOADWAi
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1U036
DATE FILED: u/r//*TELEPHONE] 312-7S7-04(M
0_ rfj2^U.rfC
&<o
U3 iU J
/ / '
Re: Couri v. McLaughlin & Stern, LLP era/ (12 cv 2220) (TPGKFM)
Dear Judge Maas:
I am writing in accordance with Local Rule 37.2 to request a conference to
discuss discovery disputes which the parties have not been able to resolve in the meet
and confer process.
Following our last court conference and the Court's order regarding
interrogatories seeking information on any engagements of defendants by James Couri,
his wives or his companies, we served interrogatories seeking to obtain information on
those engagements (Interrogatories 1 and 2) and also sought information on loans
which the defendants may have made to the same entities. (Interrogatories 3 and 4). A
settlement agreement between the defendants and James Couri referred to the
existence of such loans. Our Rule 33 Interrogatories are attached, as are Defendants
Supplemental Responses, excluding all but the first few pages of responsive business
records produced in accordance with Rule 33(d). The responses as to the
Engagements are deficient and Defendants refused to produce any information as to
the loans.
Interrogatories 3 and 4
To address the issue of the loans first, Defendants response is that the
interrogatories are improper because they were not permitted by Court order. However
neither Rule 33, nor local rule 33.3 require a Court order to serve an interrogatory for
relevant information. Local Rule 33.3(b) provides:
srom: Max Folk&nflik FaSaSO 7tZ-tflCV-02220-TO(aFMnk @CU ITlffiftt 89212) RfeKZM 1 /05/&2 4 &ag&1&12:12
Judge Maas at the August 30, 2012 Rule 37.2 conference, and
Magistrate Judge Maas' September 4, 2012 Order.
We initially sought loan information through a document request,1 and
Defendants response suggested that they produced the only available document: a
settlement agreement which referred to then existing loans but did not reveal the
amounts involved or any prior loan transactions. Defendants did not argue that
depositions are a more "practical" method of obtaining detailed financial information
than an interrogatory, and I respectfully submit it is clear that it would not be.
Information about loan transactions occurring some 20 years ago might require some
time for reflection and possibly reviewing material which could aid recollection of the
transactions involved. At a deposition, the examiner is more likely to be met with the
unhelpful response that "l do not recall at this time."
Interrogatories 3 and 4 are permitted by the Rules, and contrary to Defendants'
objections are not precluded by the Court's prior order, i request that Defendants be
ordered to respond to those interrogatories.
Interrogatories 1 & 2
There was substantial information provided on the Couri and Couri Company
engagements of Defendants in response to Interrogatories 1 and 2, but not all of the
information sought. In response to the Interrogatories, Defendants identified 25
litigation engagements and 2 non-litigation engagements through February 1993 and
billing records for several engagements after 1998.
Max Folkenflik
MF/vm
Attachments
cc: Matthew Kohel, Esq. (via e-mail)
David R. Fisher, Esq. (via e-mail)
Ms. Alexandra Couri (via e-mail)
From: Max Folksnflik pCaflft 71iT:ta^V-0??pO-T-fe(3FMnK CUmePrt &WDm8&4 1 /1 97*2 2 P^'^ W1:1*
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC
#'
__
-II
1500
B R O A D WAY
HOENDORSED
TELEPHONE: HI2-757-0
FAX: 212-757-2010
WRITER'S E-MAIL MFOLKENFUK(g>FMLAW NST
November
19,
2012
r>
VIA FAC SIMIL E2 1 2 -8 0 5 -6 7 2 4 -j - ^ o n o V w i ^ ^ Vo U ^ -^ o t* -<_ Hon. Frank Maas u^OUjJ ILjT^--' ><uu?<a-~d lu (W/. Gd^a i>
U n i t e d S t a t e s M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e < : X / 0 ^ v ^ J . , c / ! fl < , A ' s
Daniel Patrick Moynihan MitZuj 0^ IU^> C ^^- ^ ^'^ ,
United States Courthouse j.v^lJ: "31 oJ;V*o u<-><i>l<- "*" A^-Ux U*-o
500 Pearl Street u^Dc^vt^v^
Room 740 Ca o^vi. 1UcT+ <^-<-M Si/J^>t>-^^_- ^xc^rcc-./l^--<-^
N e w Yo r k . N Y 1 0 0 0 7 - 1 3 1 2 ^ ^ ^ D u > ^ s f c C C L W, W * ^ o u ; J X _
- Re: Cotyr/ v. McLaughlin & Stern, LLP et al (12 cv 2220) (TPG)(FM) ^+&- ^
Dear
Judge
Maas:
^a^Uo
uo
VoOl
Lud-WF^J
.C*
I am writing with respect to James Couri two most recent letters. I apologize to i). "3"l(?~J
the Court and Mr. Couri if I misread his handwritten word which he says is "-truth" as the A
word "trust." However, even If lhat word was misread, the import of the letter remains ___
the same as if the word was as I had construed it. ^jrXtu^ , VSM* ,
Mr. Couri's subsequent conduct also makes it absolutely clear that starting on or / ' ** /' *"
about April 30th Mr. Couri actively sought to pressure his daughter and her counsel into
dropping the case against the Defendants. He did this through repeated abusive and
defamatory e-mails and internet posts. Prior to April 30th, he had used the same tactics
to try and pressure Mr. Robbins {whom he had repeatedly described as a "thief), and
McLaughlin & Stern with respect to settling the case, while using the same abusive
tactics on Plaintiff and her counsel to get them to share the proceeds of the case with
him.
As to the other assertions Mr. Couri makes, I find it unnecessary to burden the
Court with a further response unless the Court wishes one.
ax Folkenflik i f
MF/vm
cc: Matthew Kohel, Esq. (via e-mail)
David R. Fisher, Esq. (via e-mail)
Ms. Alexandra Couri (via e-mail)
Mr. James Couri (via e-mail)