= pp" SICHENZIA fm m‘ ROSS FRIEDMAN FERENCE” July 31, 2015 Via E-filing and Regular Mait ‘The Honorable Robert R. Reed Supreme Court, County of New York 111 Cente Steet, Room 655 New York, New York 10113 Re: Hanover Holdings I, LLC v. Vippy, Inc., Mahoma Investing Ltd, and Richard Granville, Index No, 65236372014 Dear Justice Reed ‘We at litigation counsel to Plaintiff Hanover Holdings I, LLC (“Plaintiff”) inthe above- referenced action. Further to the suggestion of Your Honor’s Law Clerk, Mr. Ovens, Plaintiff write to request a telephonic conference for the purpose of addressing Defendants’ discovery deficiencies and noncompliance with the Court's Case Management Order in advance of the scheduled Status Conference on September 10, 2015. By way of background, Paint stil secks many categories of documents set forth in its Fitst Notice of Discovery and Inspection dated January 8, 2015 (the “Demand”). Defendants failed to comply with written representations to produce tesponsive materials and/or asserted baseless, boilerplate objections to most ofthe Demand, On or about May 5, 2015, Plaintiff served a good faith “meet and confer" leter. Defendants filed to produce any additional discovery. The partes appeared for a Compliance Conference on June 4, 2015, at which time Defendants represented that they would further respond to and produce ational discovery ‘within the following week, Based thereon, Plaintiff agreed to push back the document production and deposition dates, among others. Defendants failed to produce any additional discovery. On June 17, 2015, Plaintiff served an additional good faith “meet and confer” leter ‘on Defendants and cautioned that further noncompliance would cause Plaintiff to move to ‘compel, By way of illustration, Defendants Richard Granville and Mahoma Investing Ltd. have failed to produce any documents whatsoever inthis tigation, and Defendant Yippy, Ine. has failed to produce a single document relating tothe corporation's decision to breach its contractual obligations, make payment to Plaintiff, refuse to lift legends on restricted stock, orto otherwise account for the fact that it has imposed no such restrictions on its other investors. The foregoing noncompliance is particularly troubling insofar as Defendants were represented throughout the underlying transaction period (and at all imes prior tothe start of this litigation) by local, New York counsel (Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP). There's no reasonable exeuse for Defendants refusal to produce so much discovery. 61 Senay | New Yr, | 0006 ‘ar s90 000 | 2120925 | wararticom‘The Honorable Robert R. Reed July 31,2015 Page 2 0f2 Inthe spirit of full disclosure, the undersigned had contacted Defendants’ Counsel earlier this week to determine if Defendants would comply. Counsel was engaged in another cient matter and indicated that these discovery matters could be addressed atthe end of this week. ‘This has not occurred. As such, and without intending to fault existing litigation scheduts, iis prudent for Plaintiff to request a telephone conference date so that further delays do not result Pursuant to the Compliance Conference Order, dated June 4,2015, the deadline to ‘complete document production was June 6, 2015 and the deadline to complete depositions is ‘August 11-14, 2015 and September 8-11, 2015. Plaintiff requires the tailored categories of documentary discovery set forth in the Demand in order to conduct meaningful depositions and ‘cannot wait longer for possible compliance. Mr. Owens had recommended thatthe parties enlist the Court's assistance to resolve discovery disputes before moving o compel. ‘The instant letter follows. Subject tothe Court’s availability, Plaintiffs available August 12, 13,25, 26,27 and 28, 2015 fora telephonic conference. joy omitted, Daniel Scott Furst, ‘Thank you. Enel cc: Allcounse!