LAZARE POTTER & GIACOVAS LLP

LP

LAZARE POTTER & GIACOVAS LLP

875 THIRD AVENUE, 28TH FLOOR m NEw YORK, NY 10022

TEL. 212-758-9300 m FAx. 212-888-0919

w w w. I p g 1 1 p . c o mWRITER'S EMAIL WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL

[email protected] (212) 784-2413

October 14, 2016

(Via email [email protected] and U.S. Mail)

Sandeep Chatrath, Esq.

The Chatrath Law Firm, P.C.

170 Old Country Road, Suite 316

Mineola, New York 11501

Re: All About Paper, Inc. v. AmGuard Ins. Co.

Index No.: 157037/15

Dear Mr. Chatrath:

As you know, this firm represents AmGuard Insurance Company ("AmGuard") in the above-

referenced matter. On October 4, 2016, in response to AmGuard's motion to compel, I received

Plaintiff's responses to AmGuard's Combined Discovery Demands. The responses, which were due

on June 13, 2016, are not complete and include numerous deficiencies and improper objections

therein. We request that Plaintiff promptly rectify these deficiencies prior to proceeding with

depositions, and further note that AmGuard will continue to seek appropriate judicial intervention

via its pending motion to compel.

Specifically, Document Demand No. 2 requests "[a]ll documents, reports, analysis, memoranda

or other information concerning the alleged loss or damage to the AC unit that is the subject of this

action, including, but not limited to, records maintained by any person or entity retained by the

Plaintiff to perform an inspection or evaluation of the alleged loss or damage for the purpose of

evaluating the cause and origin and/or the extent of damage alleged to have takenplace."

Document

Demand No. 11 requests "[a]ll documents, including, but not limited to, reports, investigations, etc.

concerning the cause and origin of the alleged loss or damage that is the subject of thisaction."

Plaintiff's resporise refers AmGuard to Exhibit"A,"

which consists of a copy of the subject

policy, lease agreement, three invoices and two checks, and AmGuard's disclaimer. These documents

are non-responsive to the above dernañds as none contain any information concerning the alleged

damage to the AC unit, any inspections, evaluations of the AC unit and/or any reports or documents

concerning the cause and origin of the alleged damage to the AC unit.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/26/2019 02:36 PM INDEX NO. 157037/2015

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/26/2019

LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS LLP


October 14, 2016

Page 2 of 4

Document Demand No. 6 requests "[a]ll invoices, bills, cancelled checks, statements,

accounting records, estimates, repair/damage reports, wire transfer information or other documentation

relating to the alleged amount of damages at issueherein."

Document Request No. 7 requests "[a]ll

documents, including, but not limited to, all invoices, bills, cancelled checks, statements, accounting

records, estimates, repair/damage reports, wire transfer information, receipts, proof of payment or other

documentation concerning any repairs or work performed by any plumbers, contractors, professionals,

consultants, etc. in connection with the alleged loss or damage that is the subject of this action,

including, but not limited to, all work done in connection with the replacement, remediation and/or

repair of the AC unit."Document Request No. 8 requests "[a]ll documents, including, but not limited

to, all invoices, bills, cancelled checks, statements, accounting records, estimates, repair/damage

reports, wire transfer information, receipts, proof of payment or other documentation concerning anymitigation work done by Plaintiff and/or its representatives in connection with the alleged loss ordamage."

Plaintiff's response is not complete. For example, Plaintiff had not produced any proof of

payment for an invoice for work purportedly completed by Wu's Mechanical in the amount of

$25,202.62.

Document Demand No. 9 requests copies of any "contracts, agreements, amendments, riders,

endorsements or exhibits thereto, related to or concerning any and all repairs and/or work performed to

the alleged damaged AC unit that is the subject of thisaction." No such documents were provided in

Exhibit"A,"

to which Plaintiff refers AmGuard to in response to this demand.

Document Demand No. 10 requests "[c]olor copies of any photographs depicting the alleged

damaged AC unit that is the subject of thisaction."

Plaintiff again refers AmGuard to Exhibit"A,"

which contains no photographs.

Document Demand No. 13 requests "[a]ll documents including, but not limited to,

correspoñdeñce between Plaintiff and/or his representatives and AmGuard and/or its representatives

related to or concerning the alleged loss or damage to the AC unit that is the subject of this action

and/or Plaintiff's claim for coverage under the AmGuardpolicy."

Document Demand No. 15 requests

"[a]ll documents including, but not limited to, correspondence between Plaintiff and/or his

representatives and Plaintiff's landlord and/or its representatives related to or concerning the alleged

loss or damage to the AC unit that is the subject of this action and/or any claim for damages byPlaintiff."

Document Demand No. 17 requests "[a]ll documents and correspondence concerning any

tenders, demands or any other requests for coverage forwarded by or on behalf of Plaintiff to AmGuard

in connection with the alleged loss or damage that is the subject of thisaction."

Plaintiff's continued

reference to Exhibit"A"

is unresponsive as there is not a single piece of correspondence between

Plaintiff and AmGuard (other than AmGuard's disclaimer), nor any emails, letters, tenders and anyother documents between Plaintiff and AmGuard or Plaintiff and its landlord in connection with the

damaged AC unit.

Document Demand No. 18 requests "[a]ny letters, memoranda, internal documentation, or

other documents concerning whether any other entity is/are obligated to insure Plaintiff in connection



LAZARE POTTER & GlACOVAS LLP


October 14, 2016

Page 3 of 4

with the alleged loss or damage that is the subject of this action, including, but not limited to, any other

potentially relevant insurance policies and certificates ofinsurance."

Plaintiff refers AmGuard to the

AmGuard policy only. Plaintiff's response is deficient and non-responsive as the demand seeks

information concerning any other entity that may/is obligated to insure Plaintiff in connection with this

subject loss. Plaintiff has also failed to produce any certificates of insurance.

Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Demand No. 18 seeks privileged information, but no

privilege log has been provided. Thus, if and to the extent Plaintiff is withholding and/or redactingdocuments on the basis of any claimed privilege, please provide a privilege log identifying the

documents Plaintiff is withholding and the claimed privilege.

Plaintiff's responses to AmGuard's interrogatories are also incomplete and/or deficient.

Specifically, Interrogatory No. 3 requests "the specific breakdown of the alleged $70,000 in damages

Plaintiff is seeking as alleged in the Verified Complaint and/or in thisaction,"

and that Plaintiff

produce all documents in support of same. As an initial matter, Plaintiff's blanket objection to

virtually every interrogatory stating "[r]equest for production of documents is improper for a demand

forinterrogatories"

is without merit. See CPLR ¶ 3131 ("Interrogatories may require copies of such

papers, documents or photographs as are relevant to the answers required...."). In any event,

Plaintiff's response is deficient. It does not set forth the specific breakdown of the damages sought in

connection with the repairs allegedly at issue. Plaintiff also fails to specify the damages it seeks in

connection with its alleged business interruption claim, nor does it provide any documents in support

of said claim - a claim that Plaintiff asserts for the first time in its discovery responses.

Interrogatory No. 4 requests that Plaintiff "[i]dentify and produce any and all documents,

including, but not limited to, all invoices, bills, cancelled checks, statements, accounting records,

estimates, repair/damage reports, wire transfer information, receipts, proof of payment or other

documentation on which Plaintiff relies on and which supports Plaintiff's claim for damages in the

amount of $70,000, as alleged in VerifiedComplaint."

Interrogatory No. 21 ask Plaintiff to "[i]dentifyand produce any and all documents, including, but not limited to, all invoices, bills, cancelled checks,

statements, accounting records, estimates, repair/damage reports, wire transfer information, receipts,

proof of payment or other documentation concerning any repairs or work performed by any

contractors, professionals, consultants, etc. in connection with the loss that is the subject of thisaction."

Plaintiff's response refers AmGuard to its document production at Exhibit"A,"

which, as

stated above, does not include any documents concerning Plaintiff's proof of payment to Wu's

Mechanical.

Interrogatory No. 10 requests that Plaintiff identify the owner of the AC unit at issue. Plaintiff

provides no response.

Moreover, Plaintiff's responses to AmGuard's interrogatories are not properly verified. Please

provide a sworn verification from your client. See CPLR § 3133(b) ("Interrogatories shall be answered

in writing under oath by the party served, if an individual, or, if the party served is a corporation, a



LAZARE POTTER & GIACOVAS LLP


October 14, 2016

Page 4 of 4

partnership or a sole proprietorship, by an officer, director, member, agent or employee having the

information.").

Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to provide any response to the Court's May 12, 2016

Preliminary Conference Order ("PC Order").

As you know, depositions, as per the PC Order, were to be held on or before September 1,

2016. Due to Plaintiff's delay in responding to AmGuard's discovery demands -prompting the

pending motion to compel - AmGuard has been unable to proceed with depositions. Thus, please

immediately provide full and complete responses to the outstanding demands.

Lastly, please find enclosed AmGuard's Second Notice for Discovery & Inspection and

Second Set of Interrogatories in connection with Plaintiff's recently-asserted business interruption

claim.

Please also provide available dates for Plaintiff's deposition. Please note that if duly

demanded documents and/or information are not received in advance of Plaintiff's deposition,

AmGuard will reserve its right to re-depose Plaintiff once received, and will seek to recoup from

Plaintiff any costs associated therewith.

Should you wish to discuss, or have any questions, please contact me.

Very truly o

Rippi Gill

Encl.



Documents

LAZARE POTTER & GIACOVAS LLP