Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
H&R RECRUITERS, LLC D/B/A THE HAGAN-RICCI Index No.: 60992/2016
GROUP,
Plaintiff, ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION
IN SUPPORT OF
-against- APPLICATION FOR
CONTRACTUAL LEGAL FEES
JOHN CARTER and TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.,
Justice Assigned:
Hon. Linda S. Jamieson
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------X X
MICHAEL H. MASRI, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the
State of New York, hereby affirms under penalties of perjury:
1. I am a Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP partner, counsel to plaintiff
H&R Recruiters, LLC d/b/a The Hagan-Ricci Group ("HRG") and am fully familiar with the
below facts. I submit this legal fee application as directed by Your Honor on March 26, 2018.
(" Carter"
2. During the multi-day trial defendant John Carter ("Carter") conceded that he
(" Agreement"
breached his July 27, 2014 agreement with HRG ("Agreement") but he should not pay damages
because he did not make any money. At the same time, Carter pursued a frivolous counterclaim
that was barred by HRG's written policy which Carter signed and agreed to. At one point,
Carter's defense rested on his material mis-statement that he could not recognize his own
signature. This material mis-statement together with Carter's delays and further obfuscation
attorneys'
described below increased HRG's fees. As such, equity demands that Carter pay
attorneys'
HRG's legal fees including fees and costs.
3. More important, Carter agreed that, if he violated his Agreement, HRG "s_hal.1 be
Carter."
able to recover its reasonable legal fees and liquidated damages from See, Exhibit "A",
Agreement, page 2, paragraph 4 (emphasis added).
1
844651v3
1 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
4. A discussion of Meltzer Lippe's invoices, payments received from HRG and
Meltzer Lippe's qualifications follows.
I. MELTZER LIPPE'S INVOICES
charges"
5. The below invoices include extensive "no and courtesy discounts.
Despite these offsets, the below invoices also reflect how Carter unnecessarily prolonged the
litigation and increased HRG's legal fees which Carter agreed to pay. Among other things:
• Carter failed to timely serve discovery;
repeatedly
• Carter then produced responses but not the actual
only discovery
documents;
• Carter destroyed and/or withheld documents;
• Carter swore that he could not recognize his own signature in
falsely
connection with opposing HRG's Motion to Dismiss Carter's counterclaim
its'
such that Judge Scheinkman told HRG to withdraw Motion because the
opposition reflected a factual dispute as to whether Carter signed HRG's
commission policy;
• Carter refused to consent to the caption to reflect HRG's
modifying
complete name until the Court intervened the day before HRG's motion was
due;
• Carter refused to consent to the caption to include
initially amending
Defendant Tibco until the Court, once again, intervened;
• At deposition, Carter recanted his prior false and acknowledged
testimony
his own signature but nonetheless continued his counterclaim relying on an
oral modification of a commission agreement that expressly stated it could
not be modified unless in writing;
• At deposition, Carter admitted that he did not preserve and, at trial, admitted
that he destroyed documents reflecting his communications with HRG's
customers, clients and contacts in the period following Carter's employment
with HRG; and
• Carter was unable to proceed the first of trial.
during day
2
844651v3
2 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
6. According to Carter, none of the above described obfuscation is material because
Carter could freely engage in misconduct provided he did not make money from violating his
Agreement regardless of the damage to HRG. However, Carter agreed that, among other things,
HRG could recover legal fees from Carter in the event that Carter breached the Agreement.
7. It is also noteworthy that during these extensive delays and material
attorneys'
misstatements, Carter was not paying fees. As such, it did not cost Carter anything to
delay these proceedings because Carter lacked incentive to efficiently litigate this matter.
Meltzer Lippe's Engagement Agreement
8. In accordance with the engagement agreement a copy of which is annexed hereto
"B,"
as Exhibit Meltzer Lippe charged HRG in accordance with the following hourly billable
rates¹: $415 to $435 for my services; $295 to $325 for Stephanie Suarez, Esq.'s services; and
attorneys'
$405 for Richard Howard's services. Other were utilized at our firm for smaller tasks
and their rates were consistent with the above. Our firm also utilized paraprofessionals and
clerks for calendaring, e-filing and ministerial tasks and one law student clerk for limited
research.
9. Also in accordance with the engagement agreement, Meltzer Lippe submitted
periodic invoices to HRG each of which is discussed below.
September 9, 2016 Invoice
10. Our September 9, 2016 invoice is numbered 429363 amounted to $13,764.50 and
is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C".
11. The September 9, 2016 invoice included: creating a timeline and drafting the
Complaint; preparing discovery demands; drafting notices to preserve electronic data to Carter,
' of each year.
Under the terms of our engagement agreement certain attorney rates increased at the beginning The
instant litigation commenced in 2016 and there were rate increases on 2017 and 2018.
3
844651v3
3 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
as well as non-parties Rimrock Associates, Greenkey and the Options Group; correspondence
requesting a preliminary conference and related correspondence with the Court concerning
scheduling the preliminary conference; preparing pre-conference submissions in accordance with
Judge Scheinkman's individual practices; and related communications.
October 28, 2016 Invoice
12. Our October 28, 2016 invoice is numbered 3442, amounted to $18,523.65 after a
10% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit "D".
13. The October 28, 2016 invoice reflects time incurred in connection with Carter's
failure to timely respond to discovery in contravention to the CPLR. In this regard, Carter's
counsel incorrectly claimed that Carter was excused from serving discovery because issue had
not yet been joined. However, in an effort to avoid what should have been unnecessary motion
practice and as an accommodation to counsel, the parties negotiated an extension. However,
Carter still did not timely respond.
14. The October 28, 2016 invoice details the following services, in addition to
addressing Carter's discovery default: preparing the pre-conference submissions collaboratively
with opposing counsel as required by Judge Scheinkman's individual practices; analysis of case
law concerning the payment of commissions; appearing for the preliminary conference; and
leave of the Court having been given, preparing a Motion to Dismiss Defendant Carter's
counterclaims for unpaid commissions where Carter claims HRG orally modified its written
agreement signed by Defendant Carter.
December 22, 2016 Invoice
15. Our December 22, 2016 invoice, numbered 4421683 is in the amount of
"E."
$31,831.66 after a 15% courtesydiscountand is annexed hereto as Exhibit
4
844651v3
4 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
16. The December 22, 2016 invoice details: preparing a Motion to Dismiss Carter's
counterclaim where he alleged that HRG orally modified his commission agreement
notwithstanding that it could not be modified except in writing; preparing a Motion to change the
caption because Defendant Carter's counsel would not consent to changing the caption;
extensive communications with the Court and counsel regarding Carter's refusal to consent to
changing the caption; addressing Carter's discovery defaults; amending the Complaint to include
Defendant Tibco as directed by the Court; analyzing Carter's Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss his counterclaims resting on the premise that Carter could not recognize his own
signature; preparation and drafting of Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss; follow-up
communications with Carter's counsel regarding failures to produce discovery; drafting an
Amended Complaint to include Defendant Tibco; negotiating a Stipulation whereby Carter
withdrew his tenth and eleventh affirmative defenses; preparing for the November 4, 2016
preliminary conference, including extensive communications with opposing counsel; appear in
court in connection with the preliminary conference; drafting a litigation hold letter on
Defendant Tibco; drafting discovery demands on Defendant Tibco; and conferences in
connection with the foregoing.
17. The December 22, 2016 invoice details three (3) instances where Carter engaged
in obstructionist conduct which unnecessarily increased fees.
18. First, Defendant Carter refused to produce discovery. We note that Defendant
Carter previously failed to produce discovery because issue had not been joined in contravention
to the CPLR.
19. Second, Defendant Carter refused to consent to modifying the caption in that the
initial caption did not completely name HRG. In the face of a court deadline instructing HRG to
5
844651v3
5 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
move to correct the caption, Carter's counsel refused to consent to modifying the caption until
the eve of the submission of the fully briefed motion. It was not until the Court required Carter's
consent that counsel finally relented and consented to correcting the caption.
20. Third, Defendant Carter submitted opposition to the instant motion to dismiss the
counterclaims, claiming that he did not recognize his own signature. Subsequent to submitting
his false statement that he did not recognize his own signature, Defendant Carter then
acknowledged his signature at deposition.
January 11, 2017 Invoice
21. Our January 11, 2017 invoice is numbered 444874, is in the amount of $5,125.06
"F."
after a 10% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit
22. The January 11, 2017 invoice covers the month of December 2017 and describes
the following services: preparing for a new Preliminary Conference, including communications
Defendants'
with counsel; appearing for the Preliminary Conference; and reviewing the
document productions and realizing Carter destroyed documents and/or deliberately withheld
discovery. The January 11, 2017 invoice also includes expenses of $207.01 for transcription
services, Westlaw and federal express/postage.
23. Once again, Carter's destruction and withholding of electronically stored
information increased HRG's legal fees by delaying the litigation.
March 31, 2017 Invoice
24. Our March 31, 2017 invoice is numbered 453766, is in the amount of $24,674.10
"G."
after a 20% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit
25. The March 31, 2017 invoice covers the months of January and February 2017 and
Defendants'
describes services relating to: analyzing and responding to discovery demands;
6
844651v3
6 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
successfully opposing Defendant Tibco's Motion to Dismiss; and preparing for and appearing in
Court. The March 31, 2017 invoice also includes expenses of $370.90 for our docketing system,
federal express/postage, photocopies and Westlaw.
attorneys'
26. Yet again, Carter unnecessarily increased HRG's fees. In this regard,
Carter served a discovery request that was labelled as a Demand for a Bill of Particulars with
more than 25 requests. However, a review of that discovery request revealed that each request
was actually an Interrogatory Demand that had been mislabeled as a Demand for a Bill of
Particulars. As such, HRG was required to respond to discovery that was expressly prohibited
rules'
by the commercial 25 interrogatory limitation.
April 7, 2017 Invoice
27. Our April 7, 2017 invoice is numbered 456315, is in the amount of $4,578.00 and
"H."
is annexed hereto as Exhibit
28. The April 7, 2017 invoice covers the month of March 2017 and describes services
relating to: negotiating a necessary confidentiality stipulation protecting HRG's trade secrets;
Defendants'
and communications with counsel and the Court with respect to the Court's
parties'
direction and the agreement to disclose experts pursuant to CPLR §3101 and not as
provided in the Commercial Rules. The April 7, 2017 invoice does not include any expenses.
May 25, 2017 Invoice
29. Our May 25, 2017 invoice is numbered 461693, is in the amount of $10,149.20
"I."
after a 10% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit
30. The May 25, 2017 invoice covers the month of April 2017 and describes the
following services: preparing for the depositions of Carter and Tibco's representatives
concerning Carter's destruction of electronically stored information and conduct following his
7
844651v3
7 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
employment with HRG; negotiating depositions dates and noticing Defendant's for deposition
and analysis of the Court's decision denying Tibco's Motion to Dismiss. The May 25, 2017
invoice also includes expenses of $35.90 for photocopies and subscription expenses for our
online documenting system.
June 9, 2017 Invoice
31. Our June 9, 2017 invoice is numbered 464464, is in the amount of $32,407.87
"J."
after a 20% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit
32. The June 9, 2017 invoice covers the month of May 2017 and describes services
relating to: preparing for and taking the depositions of Carter and Tibco at which time Carter
acknowledged his own signature after denying the very same signature and further admitted that,
but for the documents produced by Tibco, Carter destroyed responsive documents (as he
admitted again at trial); addressing Defendant Tibco's discovery misconduct including failing to
completely produce responsive discovery and attempting to resolve said discovery abuses;
confirming HRG's compliance with its discovery obligations including preparing supplemental
and expert disclosure prior to the Court-Ordered discovery cut-off; preparing an amended
Defendants'
complaint in light of belated disclosures at deposition; and completing the Note of
Issue. The June 9, 2017 invoice also includes expenses of $1,351.47.
33. Had Carter acknowledged his own signature and not destroyed documents, the
depositions, as well as, the instant litigation, would have been much shorter and less expensive.
July 26, 2017 Invoice
34. Our July 26, 2017 invoice is numbered 500967, is in the amount of $4,135.10
"K."
after a 10% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit The July 26, 2017 invoice
covers the month of June 2017 and describes services relating to: the amended complaint;
8
844651v3
8 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018
analyzing the transcripts; and preparing for and appearing in Court. The July 26, 2017 invoice
also includes expenses of $281.30 for expenses relating to court filings, federal express, court
stenographer fees and the subscription for online calendaring.
Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ---------------------------------------------------------------------X H&R RECRUITERS, LLC D/B/A THE HAGAN-RICCI Index No.: 60992/2016 GROUP, Plaintiff, ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF -against- APPLICATION FOR CONTRACTUAL LEGAL FEES JOHN CARTER and TIBCO SOFTWARE INC., Justice Assigned: Hon. Linda S. Jamieson Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------X X MICHAEL H. MASRI, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms under penalties of perjury: 1. I am a Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP partner, counsel to plaintiff H&R Recruiters, LLC d/b/a The Hagan-Ricci Group ("HRG") and am fully familiar with the below facts. I submit this legal fee application as directed by Your Honor on March 26, 2018. (" Carter" 2. During the multi-day trial defendant John Carter ("Carter") conceded that he (" Agreement" breached his July 27, 2014 agreement with HRG ("Agreement") but he should not pay damages because he did not make any money. At the same time, Carter pursued a frivolous counterclaim that was barred by HRG's written policy which Carter signed and agreed to. At one point, Carter's defense rested on his material mis-statement that he could not recognize his own signature. This material mis-statement together with Carter's delays and further obfuscation attorneys' described below increased HRG's fees. As such, equity demands that Carter pay attorneys' HRG's legal fees including fees and costs. 3. More important, Carter agreed that, if he violated his Agreement, HRG "s_hal.1 be Carter." able to recover its reasonable legal fees and liquidated damages from See, Exhibit "A", Agreement, page 2, paragraph 4 (emphasis added). 1 844651v3 1 of 15 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 4. A discussion of Meltzer Lippe's invoices, payments received from HRG and Meltzer Lippe's qualifications follows. I. MELTZER LIPPE'S INVOICES charges" 5. The below invoices include extensive "no and courtesy discounts. Despite these offsets, the below invoices also reflect how Carter unnecessarily prolonged the litigation and increased HRG's legal fees which Carter agreed to pay. Among other things: • Carter failed to timely serve discovery; repeatedly • Carter then produced responses but not the actual only discovery documents; • Carter destroyed and/or withheld documents; • Carter swore that he could not recognize his own signature in falsely connection with opposing HRG's Motion to Dismiss Carter's counterclaim its' such that Judge Scheinkman told HRG to withdraw Motion because the opposition reflected a factual dispute as to whether Carter signed HRG's commission policy; • Carter refused to consent to the caption to reflect HRG's modifying complete name until the Court intervened the day before HRG's motion was due; • Carter refused to consent to the caption to include initially amending Defendant Tibco until the Court, once again, intervened; • At deposition, Carter recanted his prior false and acknowledged testimony his own signature but nonetheless continued his counterclaim relying on an oral modification of a commission agreement that expressly stated it could not be modified unless in writing; • At deposition, Carter admitted that he did not preserve and, at trial, admitted that he destroyed documents reflecting his communications with HRG's customers, clients and contacts in the period following Carter's employment with HRG; and • Carter was unable to proceed the first of trial. during day 2 844651v3 2 of 15 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 6. According to Carter, none of the above described obfuscation is material because Carter could freely engage in misconduct provided he did not make money from violating his Agreement regardless of the damage to HRG. However, Carter agreed that, among other things, HRG could recover legal fees from Carter in the event that Carter breached the Agreement. 7. It is also noteworthy that during these extensive delays and material attorneys' misstatements, Carter was not paying fees. As such, it did not cost Carter anything to delay these proceedings because Carter lacked incentive to efficiently litigate this matter. Meltzer Lippe's Engagement Agreement 8. In accordance with the engagement agreement a copy of which is annexed hereto "B," as Exhibit Meltzer Lippe charged HRG in accordance with the following hourly billable rates¹: $415 to $435 for my services; $295 to $325 for Stephanie Suarez, Esq.'s services; and attorneys' $405 for Richard Howard's services. Other were utilized at our firm for smaller tasks and their rates were consistent with the above. Our firm also utilized paraprofessionals and clerks for calendaring, e-filing and ministerial tasks and one law student clerk for limited research. 9. Also in accordance with the engagement agreement, Meltzer Lippe submitted periodic invoices to HRG each of which is discussed below. September 9, 2016 Invoice 10. Our September 9, 2016 invoice is numbered 429363 amounted to $13,764.50 and is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C". 11. The September 9, 2016 invoice included: creating a timeline and drafting the Complaint; preparing discovery demands; drafting notices to preserve electronic data to Carter, ' of each year. Under the terms of our engagement agreement certain attorney rates increased at the beginning The instant litigation commenced in 2016 and there were rate increases on 2017 and 2018. 3 844651v3 3 of 15 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 as well as non-parties Rimrock Associates, Greenkey and the Options Group; correspondence requesting a preliminary conference and related correspondence with the Court concerning scheduling the preliminary conference; preparing pre-conference submissions in accordance with Judge Scheinkman's individual practices; and related communications. October 28, 2016 Invoice 12. Our October 28, 2016 invoice is numbered 3442, amounted to $18,523.65 after a 10% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit "D". 13. The October 28, 2016 invoice reflects time incurred in connection with Carter's failure to timely respond to discovery in contravention to the CPLR. In this regard, Carter's counsel incorrectly claimed that Carter was excused from serving discovery because issue had not yet been joined. However, in an effort to avoid what should have been unnecessary motion practice and as an accommodation to counsel, the parties negotiated an extension. However, Carter still did not timely respond. 14. The October 28, 2016 invoice details the following services, in addition to addressing Carter's discovery default: preparing the pre-conference submissions collaboratively with opposing counsel as required by Judge Scheinkman's individual practices; analysis of case law concerning the payment of commissions; appearing for the preliminary conference; and leave of the Court having been given, preparing a Motion to Dismiss Defendant Carter's counterclaims for unpaid commissions where Carter claims HRG orally modified its written agreement signed by Defendant Carter. December 22, 2016 Invoice 15. Our December 22, 2016 invoice, numbered 4421683 is in the amount of "E." $31,831.66 after a 15% courtesydiscountand is annexed hereto as Exhibit 4 844651v3 4 of 15 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 16. The December 22, 2016 invoice details: preparing a Motion to Dismiss Carter's counterclaim where he alleged that HRG orally modified his commission agreement notwithstanding that it could not be modified except in writing; preparing a Motion to change the caption because Defendant Carter's counsel would not consent to changing the caption; extensive communications with the Court and counsel regarding Carter's refusal to consent to changing the caption; addressing Carter's discovery defaults; amending the Complaint to include Defendant Tibco as directed by the Court; analyzing Carter's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss his counterclaims resting on the premise that Carter could not recognize his own signature; preparation and drafting of Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss; follow-up communications with Carter's counsel regarding failures to produce discovery; drafting an Amended Complaint to include Defendant Tibco; negotiating a Stipulation whereby Carter withdrew his tenth and eleventh affirmative defenses; preparing for the November 4, 2016 preliminary conference, including extensive communications with opposing counsel; appear in court in connection with the preliminary conference; drafting a litigation hold letter on Defendant Tibco; drafting discovery demands on Defendant Tibco; and conferences in connection with the foregoing. 17. The December 22, 2016 invoice details three (3) instances where Carter engaged in obstructionist conduct which unnecessarily increased fees. 18. First, Defendant Carter refused to produce discovery. We note that Defendant Carter previously failed to produce discovery because issue had not been joined in contravention to the CPLR. 19. Second, Defendant Carter refused to consent to modifying the caption in that the initial caption did not completely name HRG. In the face of a court deadline instructing HRG to 5 844651v3 5 of 15 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 move to correct the caption, Carter's counsel refused to consent to modifying the caption until the eve of the submission of the fully briefed motion. It was not until the Court required Carter's consent that counsel finally relented and consented to correcting the caption. 20. Third, Defendant Carter submitted opposition to the instant motion to dismiss the counterclaims, claiming that he did not recognize his own signature. Subsequent to submitting his false statement that he did not recognize his own signature, Defendant Carter then acknowledged his signature at deposition. January 11, 2017 Invoice 21. Our January 11, 2017 invoice is numbered 444874, is in the amount of $5,125.06 "F." after a 10% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit 22. The January 11, 2017 invoice covers the month of December 2017 and describes the following services: preparing for a new Preliminary Conference, including communications Defendants' with counsel; appearing for the Preliminary Conference; and reviewing the document productions and realizing Carter destroyed documents and/or deliberately withheld discovery. The January 11, 2017 invoice also includes expenses of $207.01 for transcription services, Westlaw and federal express/postage. 23. Once again, Carter's destruction and withholding of electronically stored information increased HRG's legal fees by delaying the litigation. March 31, 2017 Invoice 24. Our March 31, 2017 invoice is numbered 453766, is in the amount of $24,674.10 "G." after a 20% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit 25. The March 31, 2017 invoice covers the months of January and February 2017 and Defendants' describes services relating to: analyzing and responding to discovery demands; 6 844651v3 6 of 15 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 successfully opposing Defendant Tibco's Motion to Dismiss; and preparing for and appearing in Court. The March 31, 2017 invoice also includes expenses of $370.90 for our docketing system, federal express/postage, photocopies and Westlaw. attorneys' 26. Yet again, Carter unnecessarily increased HRG's fees. In this regard, Carter served a discovery request that was labelled as a Demand for a Bill of Particulars with more than 25 requests. However, a review of that discovery request revealed that each request was actually an Interrogatory Demand that had been mislabeled as a Demand for a Bill of Particulars. As such, HRG was required to respond to discovery that was expressly prohibited rules' by the commercial 25 interrogatory limitation. April 7, 2017 Invoice 27. Our April 7, 2017 invoice is numbered 456315, is in the amount of $4,578.00 and "H." is annexed hereto as Exhibit 28. The April 7, 2017 invoice covers the month of March 2017 and describes services relating to: negotiating a necessary confidentiality stipulation protecting HRG's trade secrets; Defendants' and communications with counsel and the Court with respect to the Court's parties' direction and the agreement to disclose experts pursuant to CPLR §3101 and not as provided in the Commercial Rules. The April 7, 2017 invoice does not include any expenses. May 25, 2017 Invoice 29. Our May 25, 2017 invoice is numbered 461693, is in the amount of $10,149.20 "I." after a 10% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit 30. The May 25, 2017 invoice covers the month of April 2017 and describes the following services: preparing for the depositions of Carter and Tibco's representatives concerning Carter's destruction of electronically stored information and conduct following his 7 844651v3 7 of 15 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 employment with HRG; negotiating depositions dates and noticing Defendant's for deposition and analysis of the Court's decision denying Tibco's Motion to Dismiss. The May 25, 2017 invoice also includes expenses of $35.90 for photocopies and subscription expenses for our online documenting system. June 9, 2017 Invoice 31. Our June 9, 2017 invoice is numbered 464464, is in the amount of $32,407.87 "J." after a 20% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit 32. The June 9, 2017 invoice covers the month of May 2017 and describes services relating to: preparing for and taking the depositions of Carter and Tibco at which time Carter acknowledged his own signature after denying the very same signature and further admitted that, but for the documents produced by Tibco, Carter destroyed responsive documents (as he admitted again at trial); addressing Defendant Tibco's discovery misconduct including failing to completely produce responsive discovery and attempting to resolve said discovery abuses; confirming HRG's compliance with its discovery obligations including preparing supplemental and expert disclosure prior to the Court-Ordered discovery cut-off; preparing an amended Defendants' complaint in light of belated disclosures at deposition; and completing the Note of Issue. The June 9, 2017 invoice also includes expenses of $1,351.47. 33. Had Carter acknowledged his own signature and not destroyed documents, the depositions, as well as, the instant litigation, would have been much shorter and less expensive. July 26, 2017 Invoice 34. Our July 26, 2017 invoice is numbered 500967, is in the amount of $4,135.10 "K." after a 10% courtesy discount and is annexed hereto as Exhibit The July 26, 2017 invoice covers the month of June 2017 and describes services relating to: the amended complaint; 8 844651v3 8 of 15 FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/06/2018 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 60992/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2018 analyzing the transcripts; and preparing for and appearing in Court. The July 26, 2017 invoice also includes expenses of $281.30 for expenses relating to court filings, federal express, court stenographer fees and the subscription for online calendaring.