Big Mozz, Inc. v. Bric Arts Media Bklyn, Inc.

Big Mozz, Inc. v Bric Arts Media Bklyn, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 32961(U) August 20, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 656359/2022 Judge: Louis L. Nock Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LOUIS L. NOCK PART 38M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC., 01/18/2024, Plaintiff, 11/16/2023, 11/03/2023, MOTION DATE 01/18/2024 -v- BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC., d/b/a BRIC ARTS 002 003 004 MEDIA, INC., MOTION SEQ. NO. 005

Defendant. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 002) 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, and 133 were read on this motion by plaintiff for DISCOVERY .

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 003) 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 106, 107, 129, 130, 131, and 132 were read on this motion by defendant for DISCOVERY .

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 004) 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 125, 126, 127, 128, 134, and 135 were read on this motion by plaintiff for CONTEMPT .

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 005) 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 136, 137, 138, 139, and 140 were read on this motion by defendant to QUASH SUBPOENA, FIX CONDITIONS .

LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C.

Upon the foregoing documents, plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce

responses to document demands and good-faith letters, or for preclusion (Mot. Seq. No. 002);

defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to respond to document demands (Mot. Seq. No. 003);

plaintiff’s motion for contempt against a non-party (Seneca Mudd) for failure to comply with a

subpoena, as well as to compel same to respond to the subpoena and continue deposition (Mot.

Seq. No. 004); and defendant’s motion to quash plaintiff’s subpoena directed to a non-party 656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 1 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

Plaintiff has established that the documents sought in Category nos. 1 through 6 and 11

above are “material and necessary in the prosecution … of [this] action” (CPLR 3101). The test

is one of “usefulness and reason” (AQ Asset Mgt. LLC v Levine, 138 AD3d 635, 636 [1st Dept

2016]). Information regarding plaintiff; the festival; food and beverage operators, vendors, or

concessioners for the festival; the liquor license obtained for the festival; and contracts relating to

the festival—sought in Category nos. 1 through 5 and 11—has a direct bearing on plaintiff’s

claim for breach of contract. The same is true for internal discussions of defendant’s employees,

including executives and board members, relating to the Agreement and the festival, sought in

Category nos. 6 and 11. Therefore, defendant’s objections are overruled, and defendant shall

produce outstanding discovery in response to Category nos. 1 through 6 and 11.

However, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Category nos. 7 through 10 above seek

relevant information or “are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant

information” (O'Halloran v Metro. Transportation Auth., 169 AD3d 556, 557 [1st Dept 2019]).

Plaintiff argues that Category no. 7 is relevant because Seneca Mudd, defendant’s former chief

operating officer from November 2020 to December 2021, was in charge of the Agreement

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 84 ¶ 34). Category no. 8, in particular, pertains to an email correspondence

between defendant’s counsel, Mr. McKenzie, and counsel for Mr. Mudd, Ms. Watanabe. In Mr.

Mudd’s deposition, Ms. Watanabe referred to an email from Mr. McKenzie, sent prior to Mr.

Mudd’s deposition, purportedly directing that Mr. Mudd refrain from responding to certain

questions (NYSCEF Doc. No. 119 at 102-103). Based on this, plaintiff suspects the existence of

a separation agreement between defendant and Mr. Mudd. Plaintiff argues that the separation

agreement sought in Category no. 7, if it exists, and the email sought in Category no. 8, which

defendant admits exists (NYSCEF Doc. No. 116 ¶ 61), are relevant to its claims because Mr.

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 5 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

5 of 14 [* 5]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

Mudd was in charge of the Agreement, and defendant terminated the Agreement around the

same time that defendant allegedly terminated the employment of Mr. Mudd and other

executives (NYSCEF Doc. No. 84 ¶ 34). Plaintiff, thus, maintains that the information sought in

Category nos. 7 through 10 are relevant to “dismantling Defendant’s intricate web of

obfuscations” and “pattern of deliberate and systematic obstruction by Defendant” (NYSCEF

Doc. No. 133 ¶ 11).

Other than temporal correlation between defendant’s termination of the Agreement and

alleged termination of Mr. Mudd’s employment, plaintiff fails to offer any basis beyond

speculation to warrant disclosure of such employment or separation agreements. Discovery

demands are improper if they are based upon “hypothetical speculations calculated to justify a

fishing expedition” (Manley v New York City Housing Auth., 190 AD2d 600, 601 [1st Dept

1993]). Mr. Mudd’s employment at BRIC, and subsequent resignation or termination, do not

bear directly on the theory of this action that plaintiff must prove—the improper termination of

the Agreement. Plaintiff also fails to establish the relevance of documents and communications

between defendant’s counsel and third-party witnesses or third-party witness’s counsel, among

defendant’s employees, or between defendant and defendant’s counsel relating to the deposition

of, or engagement with, third-party witnesses, which are sought in Category nos. 7 through 10.

Far from “sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” (Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub.

Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]), disclosure of such information will likely accomplish the

opposite.

Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted to the extent that defendant shall,

on or before October 15, 2024, provide supplemental responses to Category nos. 1 through 6 and

11 above and produce all documents responsive to the corresponding requests in plaintiff’s First

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 6 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

6 of 14 [* 6]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

and Second Notices for Discovery and Inspection. To the extent that the documents enumerated

above are not in defendant’s possession, or cannot be located after a diligent search, defendant

shall, on or before October 15, 2024, provide plaintiff with a Jackson affidavit (see In Trade

Expo Inc. v Sterling Bancorp, 171 AD3d 634 [1st Dept 2019]; Jackson v City of N.Y., 185 AD2d

768 [1st Dept 1992]) attesting to the fact that defendant either is not in possession of those

documents or that it could not locate them after a diligent search, and describing the nature of the

search that it undertook. If defendant has, in fact, already provided the particular item, it shall,

on or before October 15, 2024, either provide plaintiff with proof that defendant has already

provided it, or shall provide a courtesy copy of the item to the extent that there is no proof that

defendant has already provided it.

As for plaintiff’s application for preclusion in the event that defendant fails to produce

the foregoing, plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendant has willfully failed to comply with

discovery orders. The record reflects that defendant furnished responses to plaintiff’s First and

Second Notices for Discovery and Inspection, substantial amounts of pages of responsive

documents, as well as a supplemental production following allegations of deficiency in

plaintiff’s good-faith letters, including a privilege log (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 86, 118, 91;

NYSCEF Doc. No. 116 ¶¶ 14, 19). Such conduct does not merit the imposition of discovery

sanctions (Glaser v City of New York, 79 AD3d 600 [1st Dept 2010] [“The record reflects that

the City adequately responded to discovery demands, albeit in response to several orders calling

for production, as well as motions to strike”]).

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt and to Compel (Mot. Seq. No. 004)

Plaintiff further moves for contempt against non-party Seneca Mudd for failure to comply

with plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum, dated March 3, 2023 (NYSCEF

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 7 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

7 of 14 [* 7]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

Doc. No. 95), as well as to compel Mr. Mudd to produce records responsive to said subpoena

and continue deposition. Both defendant and the subpoenaed party oppose the motion.

An application for civil contempt requires proof that “a lawful order of the court, clearly

expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect” (El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29

[2015]). Further, it “must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed,”

that “the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court’s order,” and “that

the movant was thereby prejudiced” (id.). The party applying for a contempt finding has the

burden to prove these elements by “clear and convincing evidence” (id.). Both the CPLR and the

Judiciary Law provide that the failure to appear and give testimony when subpoenaed to do so

shall be punishable as a contempt of court (CPLR 2308[a] [“Failure to comply with a subpoena

issued by a judge, clerk or officer of the court shall be punishable as a contempt of court”];

Judiciary Law § 753[A][5] [punishing for civil contempt “(a) person subpoenaed as a witness,

for refusing or neglecting to obey the subpoena, or to attend, or to be sworn, or to answer as a

witness”]).

As an initial matter, defendant argues that plaintiff’s motion was procedurally improper

for failure to submit an affirmation of good faith by plaintiff’s counsel and failure to serve Mr.

Mudd. The court finds that the record, taken as a whole, sufficiently establishes plaintiff’s

attempts to obtain relevant discovery pursuant to Article 31 of the CPLR (see Moran v Grand

Slam Ventures, LLC, 221 AD3d 994, 996 [2d Dept 2023] [“In this case it was apparent that

efforts to resolve the issue without the aid of the court would have been futile; therefore, the

defendants’ failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.7 (a) could be excused”). The record further

shows that plaintiff served the motion upon counsel for the subpoenaed party, Ms. Watanabe

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 135).

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 8 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

8 of 14 [* 8]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

The court declines to hold Mr. Mudd in contempt, as plaintiff failed to demonstrate his

disobedience of the subpoena. To the contrary, Mr. Mudd appeared for a deposition on May 17,

2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 96), and responded to the subpoena, albeit with general and specific

objections, producing at least one document (NYSCEF Doc. No. 97). As stated in his response,

Mr. Mudd found himself “between a rock and a hard place” (id. at 5) because defendant, his

former employer, had objected to Mr. Mudd testifying or producing certain documents “and has

threatened him should he comply” (id.; see also id. at 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26).

Plaintiff has established that the information sought in its requests in the subpoena,

except for Request no. 3, are material and necessary in the prosecution of this action (NYSCEF

Doc. No. 95). As stated above, information sought therein regarding plaintiff; the festival; food

and beverage operators, vendors, or concessioners for the festival; the liquor license for the

festival; and contracts relating to the festival are clearly relevant to its claim. However, for the

same reasons as above, plaintiff fails to show that Request no. 3, which pertains to Mr. Mudd’s

alleged termination from BRIC, bears directly on the issue of improper termination of the

Agreement.

Therefore, the motion to compel is granted as to all requests, except for Request no. 3, in

the Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum, to the extent that they seek production of

documents that cannot be obtained from defendant and have not already been demanded from

defendant pursuant to a Notice for Discovery and Inspection. Mr. Mudd shall, on or before

October 15, 2024, provide supplemental responses to the subpoena and produce all documents

responsive to the corresponding requests. To the extent that the documents requested are not in

his possession, or cannot be located after a diligent search, Mr. Mudd shall, on or before October

15, 2024, provide the plaintiff with a Jackson affidavit (see In Trade Expo Inc., 171 AD3d 634;

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 9 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

9 of 14 [* 9]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

Jackson, 185 AD2d 768) attesting to the fact that he either is not in possession of those

documents or that he could not locate them after a diligent search, and describing the nature of

the search that he undertook. If Mr. Mudd has, in fact, already provided the particular item, he

shall, on or before October 15, 2024, either provide plaintiff with proof that he has already

provided it, or shall provide a courtesy copy of the item to the extent that there is no proof that

defendant has already provided it.

The motion to compel Mr. Mudd to continue deposition is also granted. The record

shows that after about three hours of questioning, counsel for the parties and Mr. Mudd

adjourned the deposition to afford counselors the opportunity to make discovery motions,

agreeing on the record to continue deposition thereafter (NYSCEF Doc. No. 109 at 120-126).

Accordingly, the court grants leave to plaintiff to continue the deposition of Mr. Mudd.

C. Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Mot. Seq. No. 003)

Defendant moves to compel production of two documents sought in its First Notice of

Discovery and Inspection, dated September 1, 2022: plaintiff’s complete 2020 tax returns, and all

documents filed by or on behalf of plaintiff with the New York State Liquor Authority (“SLA”)

for a liquor license (Serial #1317708/1317709/1317710/1317711) in connection with the Festival

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 74). Plaintiff stated general objections and specific objections to both

requests (NYSCEF Doc. No. 75 ¶¶ 9, 12).

“[C]ompelling disclosure of tax returns is generally disfavored” (Currid v Valea, 184

AD3d 511 [1st Dept 2020]). “[T]ax returns generally are not discoverable in the absence of a

strong showing that the information is indispensable to a claim or defense and cannot be

obtained from other sources” (Moran v Grand Slam Ventures, LLC, 221 AD3d 994, 996 [2d

Dept 2023]).

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 10 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

10 of 14 [* 10]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

Here, defendant fails to make the requisite showing. Defendant argues that the 2020 tax

returns are necessary to clarify apparent discrepancies in plaintiff’s financial and employment

figures in documents produced by plaintiff in discovery. Although plaintiff’s financial condition

may be relevant to proving or disproving its damages, defendant fails to show that such

information cannot be obtained from deposition or other sources. Defendant cites to Four Aces

Jewelry Corp. v Smith (256 AD2d 42 [1st Dept 1998]) for the proposition that tax returns may be

compelled to reconcile a variance in a party’s financial valuations that raises an inference of

possible fraud. However, no such inference of fraud is present or alleged here.

Turning to the SLA filings for the liquor license: these documents are unquestionably

relevant to defendant’s counterclaims. As the holder of the liquor license for the Festival,

plaintiff was required to certify to the SLA that no fee-sharing arrangement exists and to file with

the SLA the agreement setting forth the fee structure between the parties. Thus, documents filed

with the SLA will likely shed light on the fee arrangement at issue here. To the extent that

plaintiff objects to the disclosure of the SLA filings on the grounds of confidentiality or attorney-

client privilege (NYSCEF Doc. No. 75 ¶ 12), the court finds that the documents sought, which

are filings with a third-party state agency, are not privileged (People v Osorio, 75 NY2d 80, 84

[1989] [“Generally, communications made between a defendant and counsel in the known

presence of a third party are not privileged.”]). Furthermore, the parties entered into a

confidentiality stipulation so-ordered by the court (NYSCEF Doc. No. 67).

Therefore, the motion to compel is granted to the extent that plaintiff shall, on or before

October 15, 2024, provide a supplemental response and produce all documents responsive to

Request no. 12 of defendant’s First Notice of Discovery and Inspection. To the extent that the

documents are not in plaintiff’s possession, or cannot be located after a diligent search, plaintiff

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 11 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

11 of 14 [* 11]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

shall, on or before October 15, 2024, provide defendant with a Jackson affidavit (see In Trade

Expo Inc., 171 AD3d 634; Jackson, 185 AD2d 768) attesting to the fact that it either is not in

possession of those documents or that it could not locate them after a diligent search, and

describing the nature of the search that it undertook. If plaintiff has, in fact, already provided the

particular item, it shall, on or before October 15, 2024, either provide defendant with proof that

plaintiff has already provided it, or shall provide a courtesy copy of the item to the extent that

there is no proof that plaintiff has already provided it.

Quash Subpoena

“A motion to quash is limited in scope, challenging only the validity of the subpoena or

the jurisdiction of the issuing authority” (Santangello v People, 38 NY2d 536, 539 [1976]). “An

application to quash a subpoena should be granted only where the futility of the process to

uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly

irrelevant to any proper inquiry” (Technology Multi Sources, S.A. v Stack Global Holdings, Inc.,

44 AD3d 931, 932 [2d Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

A. Defendant’s Motion to Quash (Mot. Seq. No. 005)

Additionally, defendant seeks to quash plaintiff’s Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated

September 7, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 100), directed to non-party Kristina Newman-Scott,

whom defendant’s counsel represents in connection with the subpoena on this motion.

Here, defendant raises a variety of procedural challenges to the subpoena. Defendant

maintains that the subpoena was issued past the end date for all disclosure specified in the

preliminary conference order, June 30, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 63). That order also fixed the

same date as the note of issue date. However, in two subsequent compliance conference orders,

the note of issue date was extended to July 31, 2023, and then to January 31, 2024 (NYSCEF

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 12 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

12 of 14 [* 12]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

Doc. Nos. 68, 71), indicating that the discovery period had not closed at the time the subpoena

was issued on September 7, 2023 (see Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393, 411 [2007] [“the filing of

a note of issue denotes the completion of discovery”]). In the exercise of its broad discretion

over the conduct of discovery (Strout v CF E 88 LLC, 213 AD3d 589, 590 [1st Dept 2023]), the

court deems the subpoena timely.

As to its objections to the subpoena on relevance grounds, defendant fails to demonstrate

that the discovery sought therein is “utterly irrelevant” to plaintiff’s prosecution of the action or

that the process would be futile (Technology Multi Sources, S.A, 44 AD3d at 932). Plaintiff

maintains that Ms. Newman-Scott, who was defendant’s president from 2018 to 2021, was

involved in negotiating the Agreement. The information sought in the subpoena closely mirrors

that sought in the subpoena issued to Seneca Mudd. Except for Request no. 3, pertaining to Ms.

Newman-Scott’s departure or termination from BRIC, the information sought bears directly on

plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim. Therefore, the motion to quash is denied.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (Mot. Seq. No. 002) is granted in part, to

the extent that defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s outstanding demands on or before October

15, 2024, and shall submit to plaintiff and the court, on or before then, a Jackson affidavit

regarding the searches undertaken by defendant and certifying that all responsive documents in

defendant’s possession have been produced to plaintiff; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s motion to compel (Mot. Seq. No. 003) is granted in part, to

the extent that plaintiff shall respond to defendant’s outstanding demands on or before October

15, 2024, and shall submit to plaintiff and the court, on or before then, a Jackson affidavit

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 13 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

13 of 14 [* 13]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/20/2024 04:45 PM INDEX NO. 656359/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 145 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/20/2024

regarding the searches undertaken by defendant and certifying that all responsive documents in

defendant’s possession have been produced to plaintiff; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for contempt (Mot. Seq. No. 004) against non-party

Seneca Mudd is denied, and the motion to compel his response to the subpoena and continue

deposition is otherwise granted, to the extent that Seneca Mudd shall respond to plaintiff’s

outstanding demands on or before October 15, 2024, and within 45 days from production of the

aforesaid documents, shall appear for deposition, at the office of counsel for plaintiff or virtually,

on a date and at a time convenient for the parties; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena (Mot. Seq. No. 005) directed

to non-party Kristina Newman-Scott is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that counsel are directed to appear for a status conference in Room 1166, 111

Centre Street, on December 11, 2024, at 10:00 AM.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

ENTER:

8/20/2024 $SIG$ DATE LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART X OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 14 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

14 of 14 [* 14]

Footnotes

[1] of 14 [* 1] (Mot. Seq. No. 005) are consolidated for disposition in accordance with the following memorandum. Background This action arises out of an alleged breach of contract relating to a food and beverage operator agreement, dated May 24, 2021 (the “Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement, plaintiff Big Mozz, Inc. (“Big Mozz”), agreed to serve as the exclusive food and beverage operator for a festival hosted by defendant Bric Arts Media Bklyn, Inc. (“BRIC”). In March 2022, defendant terminated the Agreement due to plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay the space use fee under the Agreement. Plaintiff, however, alleges that a side agreement between the parties provided for a profit-share arrangement, in lieu of the space use fee. In response to plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim, defendant brings counterclaims for breach of contract and tortious interference with a contract that defendant subsequently entered into with another vendor for the festival, Smorgasburg Events LLC (“Smorgasburg”). After three discovery conferences with the court to date (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 63, 68, 71), plaintiff and defendant assert various deficiencies in the other’s discovery responses or demands. Discussion Compel Discovery CPLR 3124 provides that “[i]f a person fails to respond to or comply with any request, notice, interrogatory, demand, question or order under this article, except a notice to admit under section 3123, the party seeking disclosure may move to compel compliance or a response.” On a motion brought pursuant to CPLR § 3124, the burden is on the party seeking the disclosure to establish a basis for the production sought (see, Crazytown Furniture, Inc. v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 AD2d 420 [2d Dept 1989]; accord, e.g., Rodriguez v Goodman, 2015 WL 4554460 656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 2 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005

[2] of 14 [* 2] [Sup Ct, NY County 2015]). “[T]he party challenging disclosure bears the burden of establishing that the information sought is immune from disclosure” (Ambac Assurance Corp. v DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc., 92 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2012]). A party is not required to respond to discovery demands that are “palpably improper in that they sought, inter alia, irrelevant information, or were overbroad and burdensome” (Montalvo v CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,

[102] AD3d at 842, 843 [2d Dept 2013]). Where a party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed pursuant to this article, the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just” (CPLR 3126). “A complete failure to disclose is not a prerequisite to the imposition of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, the relevant factor being whether the failure to disclose relevant documents at issue was willful and contumacious” (Waltzer v Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 31 AD3d 302, 303 [1st Dept 2006]). Willful and contumacious behavior may be inferred from repeated disregard of the court’s discovery orders without reasonable excuse (Rosengarten v Born, 161 AD3d 515, 515 [1st Dept 2018]). “A determination of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies in the trial court’s discretion” (Board of Mgrs. v Leardon Boiler Works, Inc., 178 AD3d 462, 462 [1st Dept 2019]). A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Mot. Seq. No. 002) Plaintiff moves to compel defendant to produce responses to its First Notice for Discovery and Inspection, dated November 17, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 85), Second Notice for Discovery and Inspection, dated June 2, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 90), and good-faith letters, dated January 24, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 88), and July 17, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 122). Should defendant fail to do so, plaintiff moves to preclude defendant from offering any evidence at trial relating to the outstanding discovery. 656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 3 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005 3 of 14 [* 3] As an initial matter, while the court agrees with defendant that the affirmation of good faith submitted by plaintiff’s counsel is sparse on details regarding efforts to meet and confer (NYSCEF Doc. No. 84), the record taken, as a whole, sufficiently establishes plaintiff’s attempts to obtain relevant discovery pursuant to Article 31 of the CPLR. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to compel the following 11 categories of outstanding requests from its First and Second Notices for Discovery and Inspection,1 limited to the time period of 2018 to the present (NYSCEF Doc. No. 84 ¶¶ 30, 32): 1. All documents and communications among BRIC employees regarding Big Mozz, the Festival, and the selection and hiring of a new food and beverage operator for the Festival. 2. All documents and communications between BRIC and Big Mozz regarding the Festival. 3. Communications between BRIC and Smorgasburg. 4. Contracts or agreements between BRIC, on the one hand, and any other vendor or concessioner, on the other hand. 5. Documents filed by BRIC to obtain a liquor license for the Festival. 6. Meeting minutes or agendas of meetings held by BRIC, its directors, or its shareholders. 7. Documents and communications relating to Seneca Mudd’s employment with BRIC, including documents related to his resignation or termination from BRIC. 8. Documents and communications between counsel representing BRIC and any third- party witnesses or the third-party witnesses’ counsel (i.e., Mr. McKenzie and Ms. Watanabe). 9. Documents and communications between current and former BRIC employees and the BRIC Board of Directors, discussing the deposition of any third-party witnesses. 10. Documents and communications between BRIC and its counsel relating to the engagement with third-party witnesses and/or third-party witnesses’ counsel (excluding privileged material). 11. Documents and communications exchanged between current and former BRIC employees and Board member Mark S. Cheffo, regarding the 2021 Food and Beverage Operator Agreement, Big Mozz, and the Festival. 1 Category no. 1 corresponds to Request nos. 2-5 in plaintiff’s First Notice for Discovery and Inspection (NYSCEF Doc. No. 85); Category no. 2 to Request no. 6 in same; Category no. 3 to Request nos. 8 and 21 in same; Category no. 4 corresponds to Request no. 12 in same; Category no. 5 to Request no. 19 in same; and Category no. 6 to Request no. 25 in same. Category no. 7 corresponds to Request nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 in plaintiff’s Second Notice for Discovery and Inspection (NYSCEF Doc. No. 90); Category no. 8 to Request no. 9 in same; Category no. 9 to Request no. 10 in same; Category no. 10 to Request no. 11 in same; and Category no. 11 to Request nos. 12 and 13 in same. 656359/2022 BIG MOZZ, INC. vs. BRIC ARTS MEDIA BKLYN, INC. D/B/A BRIC ARTS MEDIA, Page 4 of 14 INC. Motion No. 002 003 004 005 4 of 14 [* 4]