Court Opinion

ID: 9949159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 22:08:40.169356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:27.502235
License: Public Domain

Matter of Radio Drama Network, Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30699(U)
                     March 4, 2024
          Surrogate's Court, New York County
         Docket Number: File No. 2010-2056/A
                    Judge: Rita Mella
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.
                                                                                                New York County Surrogatn Court
                                                                                                    DATA ENTRY DEPT.
        SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                                                   MAR 04 2024
        COUNTY OF NEW YORK
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------x
        In the Matter of the Application of Radio Drama Network, Inc.
        Seeking Relief Regarding the Himan Brown Revocable Trust,
        Created By                                                                   DECISION and ORDER
                                                                                     File No. 2010-2056/A
                         HIMAN BROWN,

                                            Granter.
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------x
        MELLA,S.:

               The following submissions were considered in deciding these ten discovery-related
        motions:

        Papers Considered                                                                             Numbered

        Motion #1
        Notice of Motion by Richard L. Kay to Quash or Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum
        and For a Protective Order, dated September 20, 2019                                              1

        Affidavit of Gary B. Freidman, dated September 20, 2019, in Support of Motion to
        Quash or Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum and for a Protective Order, with Exhibits                    2

        Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, dated November 1, 2019, in Opposition to Motion
        by Richard L. Kay to Quash Petitioner Radio Drama Network, Inc. 's Subpoena on
        Pryor Cashman LLP, with Exhibits                                                                  3

        Petitioner Radio Drama Network, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
        Motion by Richard L. Kay to Quash Petitioner's Subpoena on
        Pryor Cashman LLP, dated November 1, 2019                                                         4

        Affidavit of Gary B. Freidman, dated November 15, 2019, in Further Support of
        Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena and for a Protective Order and in Opposition to
        Motion to Compel Production, with Exhibits                                                       5

        Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to Quash or Modify
        Subpoena and for a Protective Order, and in Opposition to Motion to
        Compel Production, dated November 15, 2019                                                       6

        Motion #2
        Petitioner Radio Drama Network's Notice of Motion to Compel Discovery,
        dated November 1, 2019                                                                           7

[* 1]
        Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, Esq., in Support of Motion by
        Radio Drama Network to Compel Production by Richard L. Kay and
        Pryor Cashman, dated November 1, 2019, with Exhibits                              8

        Petitioner Radio Drama Network, Inc.' s Memorandum of Law in Support of its
        Motion to Compel Pryor Cashman to Comply with Radio Drama Network's
        Subpoena and to Compel Richard L. Kay to Respond to Radio Drama Network's
        Document Demands, dated November 1, 2019                                          9

        Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to Quash or Modify
        Subpoena and for a Protective Order, and in Opposition to Motion to
        Compel Production, dated November 15, 2019                                        10

        Reply Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, Esq., dated November 20, 2019, in
        Further Support of Motion by RON to Compel Production by Richard L. Kay and
        Pryor Cashman LLP, with Exhibits                                                  11

        Petitioner Radio Drama Network, Inc.' s Reply Memorandum of Law in Further
        Support of its Motion to Compel Pryor Cashman LLP to Comply with Radio
        Drama Network's Subpoena and to Compel Respondent Richard L. Kay to
        Respond to Radio Drama Network's Document Demands, dated November 21, 2019        12

        Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, Esq., dated July 7, 2020, in Support of
        Application to File Sur-Reply in Further Support of Motion to Compel and in
        Opposition to Motion to Quash                                                     13

        Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to File Sur-Reply in
        Further Support of RD N's Motions to Compel Document Production by Richard L. Kay
        and Pryor Cashman LLP, in Further Opposition to Kay's Motion to Quash and for an
        Award of Sanctions and Attorneys' Fees, dated January 27, 2021                    14

        Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, Esq., dated January 27, 2021, in Support of
        Application to File Sur-Reply in Further Support of Motion to Compel and in
        Opposition to Motion to Quash, and in Support of Motion for Sanctions and
        Attorneys' Fees, with Exhibits                                                   15

        Affirmation of Jeffery H. Sheetz, Esq., dated July 22, 2022, in Opposition to
        Motions to Compel and for Sanctions and Other Relief, and for Leave to File
        Sur-Reply, with Exhibits                                                         16

        Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motions to Compel and for Sanctions and
        Other Relief, and for Leave to File Sur-Reply, dated July 22, 2022               17

                                                        2

[* 2]
        Reply Affirmation of Judith Wallace, dated August 15, 2022, in Further Support of
        Radio Drama Network's Motions for Sur-Reply in Support of Its Motion to Compel
        Document Production by Richard L. Kay and Pryor Cashman and for
        Sanctions, with Exhibits                                                            18

        Motion #3
        Two Notices of Motion, both dated May 23, 2022, first to Compel Richard L.
        Kay to Complete his Deposition and second for sanctions                             19,20

        Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, Esq. in Support of Motion by Radio Drama
        Network to Compel and for Sanctions Against Richard L. Kay, with Exhibits,
        dated May 20, 2022                                                                  21

        Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions to Compel Deposition
        Testimony by Richard L. Kay and Seeking Sanctions and Costs for Obstruction
        of Discovery, dated July 22, 2022                                                   22

        Affirmation of Alexander G. Malyshev, Esq., dated May 20, 2022 in Support of
        Motion by Radio Drama Network to Compel and for Sanctions Against
        Richard L. Kay, with Exhibits                                                       23

        Affidavit of Melina Brown, dated May 18, 2022, in Support of Motion to
        Compel, with Exhibit A                                                              24

        Affirmation of Jeffery H. Sheetz, Esq., dated July 22, 2022, in Opposition to
        Motions to Compel and for Sanctions and Other Relief, and for Leave to File
        Sur-Reply, with Exhibits                                                            25

        Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motions to Compel and for Sanctions and
        Other Relief, and for Leave to File Sur-Reply, dated July 22, 2022                  26

        Petitioner's Omnibus Reply Memorandum of Law in Support oflts Motions to
        Submit a Sur-Reply, to Compel Kay's Deposition Testimony, and For Discovery
        Sanctions, dated August 15, 2022                                                    27

        Reply Affirmation of Judith Wallace, Esq., dated August 15, 2022, in Further
        Support of RDN's motions to Compel Deposition Testimony by Richard L. Kay
        and for Sanctions, with Exhibits                                                    28

        Motion #4
        Notice of Motion dated July 26, 2023, seeking Pryor Cashman to comply with
        Petitioner's Supplemental Document Demands dated April 26, 2023                     29

                                                       3

[* 3]
        Affirmation of Judith Wallace, Esq., dated July 26, 2023, in Support of
        Motion to Compel Pryor Cashman to Comply with Radio Drama Network's
        Supplemental Document Demands, with Exhibits                                        30

        Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Compel Pryor
        Cashman to Comply with Radio Drama Network's Supplemental
        Document Demands, dated July 26, 2023                                               31

        Affirmation of Michael B. Kramer, Esq., dated August 25, 2023, in Opposition
        to the Motion to Compel Pryor Cashman to Comply with Radio Drama Network's
        Supplemental Document Demands, with Exhibits                                        32

        Petitioner's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to
        Compel Pryor Cashman LLP to Comply with Radio Drama Network's Supplemental
        Document Demands, dated August 30, 2023                                             33

        Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, Esq., dated August 30, 2023, in Further
        Support of Motion to Compel Pryor Cashman to Comply with Radio Drama
        Network's Supplemental Document Demands, with Exhibits                              34

        Motion #5
        Notice of Motion, dated October 19, 2023, Seeking an Order Narrowing the
        Scope of Depositions of Ann Kay and Karen Kay and for related relief                35

        Affidavit of David Sillers, dated October 18, 2023, with Exhibits                   36

        Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Protective Order, dated October 19, 2023 3 7

        Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion of Karen Kay and
        Ann Kay for Protective Order, dated November 10, 2023                               38

        Affirmation of Alexander G. Malyshev, Esq., dated November 10, 2023, in
        Opposition to Motion for Protective Order, with Exhibits                            39

        Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Protective Order,
        dated November 16, 2023                                                             40

        Motion #6
        Notice of Motion for a Protective Order pursuant to CPLR 3103 with respect to
        the Deposition Notice Issued to Barrie Sansted (nee Brown) on July 25, 2022,
        dated November 14, 2022                                                             41

        Affirmation of Alexander G. Malyshev, Esq., dated November 14, 2022,
        in Support, with Exhibits                                                           42
                                                       4

[* 4]
        Affirmation of David F. Lisner, Esq., dated February 5, 2024, in Opposition to
        Petitioner's Motion for a Protective Order Pursuant to CPLR 3103 with Respect to
        Deposition Notice Issued to Barrie Sansted, with Exhibits                            43

        Respondent Richard Kay's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner's
        Motion for a Protective Order Pursuant to CPLR 3103 with Respect to the
        Deposition Notice Issued to Barrie Sansted, dated February 5, 2024                   44

        Reply Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, dated February 13, 2024, in Further
        Support of Motion for a Protective Order and to Quash Notice of Deposition of
        Barrie Brown, with Exhibits                                                          45

        Radio Drama Network's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of
        Motion for Protective Order and to Quash the Notice of
        Deposition of Barrie Brown, dated February 13, 2024                                  46

        Motion #7
        Notice of Motion, dated November 10, 2023, for an Order to Quash
        Subpoena Directed to Barrie Brown and for a Protective Order with Respect
        to the Subpoena                                                                      47

        Affirmation of Judith M. Wallace, Esq., dated November 10, 2023, in
        Support of Motion on Behalf of Barrie Brown to Quash a Subpoena and for
        Protective Order, with Exhibits                                                      48

        Memorandum of Law on Behalf of Barrie Brown in Support of Motion to
        Quash a Subpoena and for Protective Order, dated November 10, 2023                   49

        Affirmation of Michael B. Kramer, Esq., dated November 21, 2023, in Opposition to
        Motion to Quash and for Protective Order and in Support of Cross-Motion to Compel,
        with Exhibits                                                                        50

        Memorandum of Law of Respondent Richard L. Kay in Opposition to the
        Motion of Barrie Brown to Quash Subpoena ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum
        and for a Protective Order and in Support of Petitioner's Cross-Motion to
        Compel, dated November 21, 2023                                                      51

        Respondent Richard Kay's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner's
        Motion for a Protective Order Pursuant to CPLR 3103 with Respect to the
        Deposition Notice Issued to Barrie Sansted, dated February 5, 2024                   52

        Memorandum of Law of Barrie Brown in (1) Further Support of her Motion to
        Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum, and for a Protective Order, and
        (2) in Opposition to Richard L. Kay's Motion to Compel, dated November 27, 2023      53
                                                       5

[* 5]
        Motion #8
        Notice of Cross-Motion, dated November 21, 2023, Compelling the Deposition
        of Barrie Brown and Production of Documents Responsive to Subpoena                   54

        Affirmation of Michael B. Kramer, Esq., dated November 21, 2023, in Opposition to
        Motion to Quash and for Protective Order and in Support of Cross-Motion to Compel,
        with Exhibits                                                                        55

        Memorandum of Law of Respondent Richard L. Kay in Opposition to the Motion of
        Barrie Brown to Quash Subpoena ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum and for a
        Protective Order and in Support of Petitioner's Cross-Motion to Compel, dated
        November 21, 2023                                                                    56

        Memorandum of Law of Barrie Brown in ( 1) Further Support of her Motion to Quash
        Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum, and for a Protective Order, and
        (2) in Opposition to Richard L. Kay's Motion to Compel, dated November 27, 2023      57

        Reply Memorandum of Law of Respondent Richard L. Kay,
        dated November 29, 2023, in Support of Cross-Motion to Compel                        58

        Motion #9
        Notice of Motion of Radio Drama Network, dated December 18, 2023, for an Order
        Enjoining Richard L. Kay and his Counsel from Interference with Discovery of
        Matthew Forman, and for Sanctions and an Adverse Inference Charge                    59

        Petitioner's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Enjoin Respondent
        Richard Kay and His Counsel from Improper Interference with Discovery From
        Third-Party Witness Matthew Forman Pursuant to Subpoena, for Sanctions, and for
        Order Authorizing Further Discovery from Forman, dated December 18, 2023             60

        Affirmation of Judith Wallace, Esq., dated December 18, 2023, in Support of
        Motion to Enjoin Kay from Interference with Forman Discovery, for Sanctions,
        and for Order Authorizing Further Discovery from Forman, with Exhibits               61

        Respondent Richard Kay's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner's
        Motion to Enjoin Respondent and his Counsel from Interference with Discovery
        from Third-Party Witness Matthew Forman, for Sanctions, and for Order
        Authorizing Further Discovery from Forman; and in Support of Respondent's
        Cross-Motion for Entry of a Confidentiality Order, dated January 30, 2024            62

        Affirmation of Judith Wallace, Esq., dated February 5, 2024, in Further Support of
        Motion to Enjoin Kay from Interference with Forman Discovery, for Sanctions,
        and for Order Authorizing Further Discovery from Forman and in Opposition to

                                                       6

[* 6]
        Cross-Motion for Confidentiality Order                                                        63

        Petitioner's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to
        Enjoin Respondent Richard Kay and his Counsel from Improper Interference
        with Discovery from Third-Party Witness Matthew Forman Pursuant to
        Subpoena, for Sanctions, and for Order Authorizing Further Discovery from
        Forman and in Opposition to Kay's Cross-Motion for a Confidentiality Order,
        dated February 5, 2024                                                                        64

        Motion #10
        Notice of Cross-Motion for the entry of an Order for the Production and
        Exchange of Confidential Information, dated January 30, 2024                                  65

        Affirmation of David F. Lisner, dated January 30, 2024, in Opposition to
        Petitioner's Motion to Enjoin Respondent and His Counsel from Interference in
        Discovery and in Support of Respondent's Cross-Motion for Entry of a
        Confidentiality Order, with Exhibits                                                          66

        Respondent Richard Kay's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner's
        Motion to Enjoin Respondent and his Counsel from Interference with Discovery
        from Third-Party Witness Matthew Forman, for Sanctions, and for Order
        Authorizing Further Discovery from Forman; and in Support of Respondent's
        Cross-Motion for Entry of a Confidentiality Order, dated January 30, 2024                     67

        Petitioner's Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to
        Enjoin Respondent Richard Kay and his Counsel from Improper Interference
        with Discovery from Third-Party Witness Matthew Forman Pursuant to Subpoena,
        For Sanctions, and for Order Authorizing Further Discovery from Forman and in
        Opposition to Kay's Cross-Motion for a Confidentiality Order, dated February 5, 2024          68

               On February 20, 2024, the court heard oral argument and determined ten discovery

        motions pending in this heavily litigated estate. Familiarity with the facts and procedural

        background are presumed at this time, having been described in various decisions issued by the

        court, including one determining a pre-answer motion to dismiss the instant petition of Radio

        Drama Network, Inc. (RDN or Petitioner), which seeks, inter alia, to invalidate certain provisions

        of instruments amending or restating the Revocable Trust established by Grantor Himan Brown

        in 2002 (Revocable Trust) (Matter of Brown, NYLJ, July 23, 2019, at 22 col 3 [Sur Ct, NY

                                                         7

[* 7]
        County]). 1 Additional facts are found in a decision addressing a discovery motion regarding the

        deposition of a nonparty (see Matter of Brown, NYLJ, Sept 23, 2022, at 17, col 1 [Sur Ct, NY

        County], rev 'd sub nom. Matter of Radio Drama Network, Inc., 214 AD3d 461 [1st Dept 2023]).

        Motion #1 - Richard L. Kay's Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena Duces Tecum and For a
        Protective Order

        Motion #2 - RDN's Motion to Compel Discovery from Richard Kay and Pryor Cashman LLP

                 Concerning the discovery demands dated September 4, 2019, and served by RON on Mr.

        Kay, as well as concerning the items of discovery sought in the subpoena dated August 20, 2019,

        served on Pryor Cashman by RDN, the court, recognizing the guidance provided by the decision

        of the Appellate Division, First Department, dated March 9, 2023, reversing a prior decision of

        this court (Matter of Radio Drama Network, Inc., 214 AD3d 461 [1st Dept 2023]), directed that:

               A) Mr. Kay and Pryor Cashman need not comply with Items or Demands## 25, 28, 29,
        30 through 32 and 34 because they seek evidence that is not relevant to any of the remaining
        claims or defenses in this proceeding;

                B) Mr. Kay and Pryor Cashman need not comply with Items or Demands## 19, 22 and
        35 because they are overbroad (Demand #35 applies only to the Demands served on Mr. Kay and
        not to the subpoena served on Pryor Cashman);
               C) Mr. Kay and Pryor Cashman must fully comply with Items or Demands## 5, 6, 7 and
        8, which relate to Radio Drama Network's documents, and must also fully comply with
        Demands## 20 and 23;

                 D) Mr. Kay and Pryor Cashman must comply with Items or Demands## 10 through 15,
        21, 26, 27 and 33, but in the exercise of the court's discretion to regulate discovery (Duracell
        Intl. v American Employers' Ins. Co., 187 AD2d 278 [1st Dept 1992]), production should be
        limited to the period from November 20, 1999 to June 4, 2010, which is Himan Brown's date of
        death; and

        1
          Radio Drama Network, Inc., is a charitable corporation established by Himan Brown in 1984. It was the original
        remainder beneficiary of the Revocable Trust. Respondent in this proceeding, Richard L. Kay, was the long-time
        lawyer of Himan Brown, held a position as a director of Radio Drama Network, and is Trustee of the Revocable
        Trust, as well as of the Charitable Trust which is the remainder beneficiary of the amended and restated Revocable
        Trust here.
                                                                 8

[* 8]
               E) Mr. Kay and Pryor Cashman must comply with Items or Demands ## 1 through 4, 9,
        16 through 18, and 24, but in the exercise of the court's discretion to regulate discovery,
        production should be limited to the period from November 20, 1999 to November 30, 2015 (the
        month before this proceeding was commenced).

                The court directed that these documents be produced no later than April 12, 2024.

        Further, if Mr. Kay or Pryor Cashman claim that they have already complied with a particular

        demand, the court directed that they provide to RON' s counsel, no later than April 12, 2024, an

        affidavit indicating their compliance and stating the date in which they complied with such

        demand. In addition, the court ordered that should Mr. Kay or Pryor Cashman claim that there

        are no documents in their possession or under their control that are responsive to a particular

        demand, they must provide to RDN's counsel, no later than April 12, 2024, an affidavit

        indicating that, notwithstanding a thorough search in places where these documents are usually

        found, they were unable to find any such document and that no document responsive to such

        demand was disposed of or destroyed.

               RDN's motion for the imposition of sanctions was denied.

        Motion #3 - RDN's Motion to Compel Richard L. Kay to Complete his Deposition and for
        Sanctions

               The court granted the motion of RON for a continued deposition of Mr. Kay and directed

        him to appear for the same no later than May 3, 2024. Regarding the scope of questions, the

        court again recognized the holding of the First Department's March 9, 2023 decision, and

        directed Mr. Kay to answer questions pertaining to his actions or events, including his actions as

        Trustee of the Charitable Trust and his administration of that Trust until the present.

        Additionally, the court granted this motion to the extent of directing Mr. Kay not to limit the

                                                         9

[* 9]
         questions asked of Alan Laufer during his continued deposition, if one is taken. RDN's request

         for sanctions was denied.

                 The parties were reminded that depositions conducted in New York are governed by

         State laws and rules, including the rules for the conduct of depositions found in Part 221 of the

         Uniform Rules for Trial Courts.

         Motion #4 - Motion of RON to compel production from Pryor Cashman

                 The court determined this motion by directing that, no later than April 12, 2024, Pryor

         Cashman must comply with the following supplemental demands included in the April 26, 2023

         letter of RDN counsel Judith Wallace to Michael Kramer, counsel to Richard Kay:

               A) Indexes of Records for Himan Brown Client Number 70204 prepared by any
         employee or member of Pryor Cashman at the time that documents were sent to the Records
         Department;

               B) Lists of the contents of Himan Brown's estate planning file prepared by any employee
         or member of Pryor Cashman even if the file was not sent to the Records Department;
               C) Emails to and from Charles Skaar concerning the preparation of lists or indexes for the
         Himan Brown estate file; and
               D) Documents and communications concerning the sorting and removal of materials
         from RDN's client file.
                The court held that Pryor Cashman need not comply with the demand to produce a

         spreadsheet of all its active litigation holds. Further, the court directed that if Pryor Cashman

         claims that there are no documents in their possession or under their control that are responsive

         to any of these supplemental demands, it must provide to RD N's counsel, no later than April 12,

         2024, an affidavit indicating that, notwithstanding a thorough search in places where these

         documents are usually found, they were unable to find any such document.

[* 10]
         Motion #5 - Motion by Non-Parties Ann Kay and Karen Kay for a Protective Order and a
         Confidentiality Order

                 The motion by non-parties Ann Kay and Karen Kay, the daughters-in-law of Richard

         Kay, and employees of the Charitable Trust for a protective order limiting the scope of RDN's

         deposition subpoena and for a Confidentiality Order was granted by the court, only to the

         following extent:

                 A) the depositions of Ann Kay and Karen Kay shall each last no longer than four hours;
         and

                B) The parties are directed not to disclose to third parties or the public the following
         information:

                         I) Birth dates, Social Security Numbers, bank accounts numbers and balances,
         financial account numbers and balances of Ann Kay, Karen Kay, their spouses and their
         children; and
                          2) Personal information about Mr. Kay's grandchildren's medical, personal and
         academic records, including their grades and applications for admission to any academic
         institution (see McLaughlin v G.D. Searle, Inc., 38 AD2d 810,811 [1st Dept 1972] [material
         confidential in nature or information subject to abuse if widely disseminated shall be accorded
         judicial safeguards where possible]).

         Motion #6 - Motion for a Protective Order pursuant to CPLR 3103 with Respect to
         the Deposition Notice Issued to Barrie Sansted (nee Brown) on July 25, 2022

         Motion #7 - Barrie Brown's Motion for an Order to Quash Subpoena Directed to Barrie Brown
         and for a Protective Order with Respect to the Subpoena

         Motion #8 - Richard Kay's Cross-Motion Compelling the Deposition of Barrie Brown apd
         Production of Documents Responsive to Subpoena

                Motions## 6, 7, and 8 all relate to discovery from Barrie Sansted (nee Brown), one of the

         grandchildren of Himan Brown, and a Director of RDN. The court granted Motion #6, for a

         protective order, to the extent of directing that Barrie Brown need not appear for a deposition in

         her capacity as a director of RDN. Mr. Kay has not shown that the corporate representatives

                                                          11

[* 11]
         designated by RDN who were already deposed (Melina Brown, as well as Eli Kopelman) had

         insufficient knowledge or were otherwise inadequate witnesses (CPLR 3106[d]; Giordano v New

         Rochelle Mun. Haus. Auth., 84 AD3d 729 [2d Dept 2011]).

                 As to Motion #7, the court denied Barrie Brown's request that the subpoena served on her

         be quashed, and directed her to appear for a deposition on a date agreed to by the

         parties. However, the court did issue a protective order with respect to some of the document

         requests included in the subpoena. First, the court concluded that Ms. Brown does not need to

         produce documents responsive to Requests ##1 through 5, because those documents are not

         relevant to any of the claims or defenses in this proceeding. Second, the court directed that Ms.

         Brown does not need to produce documents responsive to Request #8 because the request is

         overbroad. Third, the court directed Ms. Brown to comply no later than April 12, 2024, with

         Requests ##6, 7, and 9 through 13. With respect to Requests ##10, 11, 12, and 13, the oourt

         determined that production should be limited to documents produced or dated from 2003 to June

         2010. In addition, the court directed that Requests ## 10 and 11 should be limited to

         communications between Barrie Brown and Himan Brown.

                 The court further directed that if Ms. Brown claims that some of the communicail:ions

         sought to be produced are privileged, she must produce a privilege log, pursuant to CPLR

         3 l 22(b ). Finally, the court denied Ms. Brown's request for the imposition of costs and attorneys

         fees.

                 Consistent with the resolution of Motions ##6 and 7, the court granted in part and denied

         in part Motion #8.

                                                          12

[* 12]
         Motion #9 - Motion of RDN for an Order Enjoining Richard L. Kay and his Counsel firom
         Interference with the Deposition of Matthew Forman, and for Sanctions and an Adver$e
         Inference Charge

                 The court next granted RDN's motion to enjoin Mr. Kay from interfering with the

         deposition of Matthew Forman, to the following extent:

                 A) RON is allowed to continue the deposition of Mr. Forman but the deposition shall be
         limited to four hours and shall be further limited to the topics that Mr. Forman refused to answer
         based on his obligations under the March 1, 2018 Non-Disclosure Agreement between the
         Charitable Trust and Mr. Forman and Miami Philanthropic Consulting, Inc. (the NOA),
         including questions concerning the NDA, the consulting agreement, and the circumstances
         giving rise to each of those agreements;

                 B) Mr. Kay shall not rely on the NOA to object to the questions posed to Mr. Forman
         during the continued deposition. Nor may Mr. Kay interfere with Mr. Forman's compliance with
         the RON subpoena; and

                C) RDN's request for sanctions is denied at this time, without prejudice to renewal
         should Mr. Kay interfere with the continued deposition of Mr. Forman.

         Motion #10 - Cross-Motion by Richard Kay for the Issuance of a Confidentiality Order

                 The final motion before the court, Mr. Kay's cross-motion for the issuance of a

         confidentiality order, in the form proposed by him, was denied. The court found that the

         conclusory statements in the Memorandum of Law by Mr. Kay's counsel concerning RDN's

         potential dissemination of information produced in discovery coupled with the vague description

         of the information that could be designated as confidential (i.e., "sensitive personal infonnation")

         in Mr. Kay's proposed order failed to provide a basis for the court to exercise its discretion in

         favor of such order.

                Exercising its own discretion and authority to regulate discovery, however, the court

         directed the parties not to disclose to third parties or the public the categories of information

         described as "confidential information" on Ms. Wallace's January 29, 2024 email to Drew Dean

                                                           13

[* 13]
         (email sent at 3 :45 p.m.) as well as the balances of any bank account or financial or investment

         account and any personal information about Mr. Kay's grandchildren's medical, personal and

         academic records, including their grades and applications for admission to any academic

         institution. The parties shall enter into a confidentiality agreement reflecting this direction.

                 The court noted that this determination fully resolved all pending motions in this

         proceeding and indicated that, to the extent not expressly addressed on the record and contained

         herein, any other relief sought in any motion is denied.

                This decision, together with the transcript of the February 20, 2024 proceedings,

         constitutes the order of the court.

                Clerk to notify.

         Dated: March _!1_, 2024
                                                                          dnATE

                                                          14

[* 14]