Meissner v Yun

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Meissner v Yun 2017 NY Slip Op 32721(U) December 20, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650913/12 Judge: Andrea Masley 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. INDEX NO. 650913/2012 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2017 03:44 PM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2017 Index No. 650913/12 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : IAS PART 48 ---------------------------------------x JOERN MEISSNER, Plaintiff, -againstTRACY YUN and MANHATTAN ENTERPRISE GROUP LLC, Defendants. ---------------------------------------x ANDREA MASLEY, J ..: This case involves the alleged take-over, by defendant Tracy Yun (Yun), of Manhattan Review LLC, a limited liability corporation established to assist persons who are preparing to take exams for admission to business schools, and the take-over of the assets of the LLC. For the purposes of this motion, it is unnecessary to 'examine the complex history of this litigation. In this motion, Yun, who is appearing unrepresented, moves for an order and judgment, pursuant to CPLR 5104 and Judiciary Law§§ 753 (A) (3) and 773:. (1) finding plaintiff Joern Meissner (Meissner) guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with a court ordered confidentiality ~tipulation dated August 19, 2015 (the Confidentiality Stipulation) governing cert.ain discovery material; (2) enjoining plaintiff from using designated confidential information; and (3) directing plaintiff to redact/remove protected confidential information from public filings on the federal and state court dockets and elsewhere. The Confidentiality Stipulation provides that either party can designate information as confidential information, and limits the use of that information by the receiving party to use ufor the purposes of this litigation,n u[e]xcept with the prior 2 of 7 INDEX NO. 650913/2012 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2017 03:44 PM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2017 Index No. 650913/12 written corisent of the Producing party or by Order of the Court." Yun aff, exhibit B, ~~ 6, 5. The Confidentiality Stipulation defines confidential information as: "all Documents and Testimony, and all information contained therein, and other information designated as confidential, if such Documents or Testimony contain trade secrets, proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information, or other information the disclosure of which would, in the good faith judgment of the party designating the material as confidential, be detrimental to the conduct of that party's busines~ or the business of any of that party's customers or clients." Id., ~ 3 (a). Yun alleges that Meissner violated the Confidentiality Stipulation by incorporating information contained in· three email chains ·between Yun and attorney Christopher Kelly, dated December 30, 2010, November 4, 2011 and December 21, 2011; in allegations made by Meissner in an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Manhattan Review LLC v Yun, us Dist Ct, SD NY, 16 Civ 0102 that are qu~ted (LAK). The allegations by Yun include, among others, the following: "49. During this time period, namely December 2011, Yun was consulting with Kelly, receiving advice from Kellj, acting upon Kelly's advice, and informing the employees of Manhattan Review that she was acting upon the advice of counsel in closing down Manhattan Review, creating a new entity and transferring all of Manhattan Review's assets, clients, intellectual property and employees to her entity, Manhattan Elite Prep. *** "83. Specifically but not exclusively, in December 2011, Kelly advised Yun about how to engage in a sham transaction for the transfer of Manhattan Review's trademarks, but then advising Yun: 'Whatever you give [Manhattan Review] you could then just turn around and pay yourself.' 2 3 of 7 INDEX NO. 650913/2012 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2017 03:44 PM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2017 Index No. 650913/12 "84. Specifically but not exclusively, in December 2011, Kelly had actual knowledge that Yun was intent on dissolving Manhattan Review, and he further advised Yun, 'If you dissolve [Manhattan Review] and distribute all assets (pay yourself etc), you could then start from scratch with anothe.r entity (or two) ... [You] will have to negotiate with Joern about what to do with [Manhattan Review] name, website, trademark, etc., as you note.'" Yun inem of law at 9-10. According to Yun, the allegations are derived almost completely from information contained in the email chains, and a·re gross distortions of the facts. Yun also asserts that the federal action, in which the allegations are made, is duplicative of derivative claims previously dismissed in this action. Yun contends that the documents were designated confidential information, and, therefore, their use in the federal action by Meissner constitutes a violation of the Confidentiality Stipulation. Yun had produced the email chains in response to a motion by Meissner in the context of this litigation. According to the decision ordering their production, Yun claimed that the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege. v Yun, 2016 NY Slip Op 30468 (U), Oing, J.). Meissner *l. (Sup Ct, NY County 2016, There is no indication that Yun claimed that the documents were otherwise confidential. In his decision on the motion, Judge Oing held that the three email chains that are the subject of this motion were not protected by the attorney-client privilege, because Kelley was not, in fact, Yun's attorney, but rather, represented Manhattan 3 4 of 7 INDEX NO. 650913/2012 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2017 03:44 PM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427 Review, LLC. 1 Id. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2017 Index No. 650913/12 at 2. Judge Oing, therefore, ordered that the three email chains be produced by Yun. Id. at 4. In a later order, dated June 9, 2016, Judge Oing directed Yun to provide the documents to Meissner on or before June 20, 2016. On June 19, 2016, Yun moved before the Appellate Division, First Department, for a stay of discovery pending a hearing and determination of appeals from Judge Oing's various orders. That motion was denied, and interim relief, which had been granted by the Appellate Division, was vacated on August 4, 20i6. According to Yun, she produced the email chains around August 4, 2016, and in a footer to the documents, Yun wrote, ~corifidential Pursuant to Protective Order August 19, 2015 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650913/12." Yun reply aff, ! 4. It is that footer on which she bases her claim that use of the content of the email chains violated the Confidentiality Stipulation, because Meissner failed to obtain either her prior written consent or an order of the court before using information contained in the documents. When Yun originally produced the documents in response to a motion made by Meissner, pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation, she did not claim that the email chains were confidential for any reason other than as attorney-client documents. If she believed that the email chain~ were confidential for any other reason, she should have made that 1 Judge O.ing also ruled that· one email chain, dated March 27, 2012, was privileged, because it was dated after Manhattan Review, LLC was dissolved and it concerned trial preparations for this litigation. That email chain was not turned over to Meissner and is not involved in this motion. 4 5 of 7 INDEX NO. 650913/2012 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2017 03:44 PM 5] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427 claim at the time. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2017 Index No. 650913/12 As a general rule, "when a party fails to challenge a disclosure request in a timely fashion, inquiry into the propriety of the information sought is foreclosed." Knoll Assoc. v Schmidt, 99 AD2d 772, 772 Park (2d Dept 1984) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Pagones v Maddox, 172 AD2d 809, 811 (2d Dept.1991) (defendants waived "objections to all but palpably improper items in the demands for bills of particulars by failing to timely move for a protective order"). Here, Meissner's request for the email chains was not palpably improper. The court recognizes that Yun is not an attorney, and is appearing unrepresented; however, were this court to permit her to raise an entirely new and unrelated claim of confidentiality, after the court fully examined and rejected her original claim of confidentiality based upon a purported lawyer-client relationship, it would merely be rewarding Yun for her own failure to timely assert the full bases for her claim of confidentiality, and would unjustifiably burden the court. 2 In any case, even had Yun timely raised her claim of confidentiality, her motion must be denied, because the allegations quoted by Yun do not contain confidential information as defined in In that document, confidential the Confidentiality Stipulation. 2 Yun complains in her reply affidavit that counsel for Meissner did not botify her until August 17, 2017, in a letter, that Meissner disagreed with her belated designation of the emails as confidential. But it was her designation of those emails as confidential that was untimely, rather than the letter of counsel which was sent in response to her motion seeking an order of contempt. 5 6 of 7 INDEX NO. 650913/2012 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2017 03:44 PM 6] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 427 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2017 Index No. 650913/12 information is defined as dontaining "trade secrets, proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information, or other information the disclosure of which would, in the good faith judgment of the party designating the material as confidential, be detrimental to the. conduct of that party's business or the business of any of that party's customers or clients." ~ 3. Yun aff, exhibit B, Yun fails to point out any allegations that disclose, contain, or even refer to trade secrets, propriety business information or competitively· sensitive information. Nor may Yun rely on the final portion of the definition, "other information the disclosure of which would, in the good faith judgment of the party qesignating the material as confidential, be detrimental to the conduct of that party's business or the business of any of that party's customers or clients." Id. That phrase must be taken to relate to the phrase that comes before it, "trade secrets, proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information." Without relating back to those terms, it could apply to virtually any information that the producing party did not wish to reveal, and, as such, is not a proper base foi a claim of confidentiality or a motion for contempt. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant '"'"d' /J jJo Jo-6 7 of 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.