Sustainable Pte Ltd v Peak Venture Partners LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Sustainable Pte Ltd v Peak Venture Partners LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32137(U) August 30, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650340/2015 Judge: O. Peter Sherwood 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: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/31/2018 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 650340/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 392 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2018 SUPREME C()lJRT OF TllE STATE OF NEW YOR_K COU'N'fY OF, NEW YOiiK: C()MMEl~CIAL lllVlSIC>N J>At{rf"' 49 -------------------------------------------X SUSTAINABLE PTE LTD, et 11/., l>I~:<~ISION AND 01{1> ..:J{ Index No.: 650340/2015 Plaintiffs, -against- Motion Sequence No.: 018 PEl\K VENTUl~E t>AJ{TNEI~S LL(~, Defendant. - - - ~ .. - .............. - - - - .- ... - ._ - - - - .. . . - - . . - ~ - -- - - - - - - - ...... ., ---X· 0. PETER Sl·IEl{W()()JJ, cl.: rfhis case arises fron1 the acquisition by defendants of Silveri ink llcsorts Li1nitcd (BVI)~ a holding company for entities that owned and operated hotels and held related licenses and intellectual property. ]lJaintitl"s assisted defendants in the acquisition but plaintiffs were not , con1pensated. Defenclant Nader Tavakoli is Chairn1an and Chief Execuive Oflicer of non-party I~agleRock Capital Manage1nent and was a director of other involvt=d (but non-party) entities. Kaso\vitz, Benson & 'l'orres (KB'r) represented 'l'avakoli (along with son1e other d'efendants) u11til.Jt1ne 2017 (Consent to Change of Attorneys, NYSCEF Doc. No .. 314 ). 1,avakoli subsequently changed attorneys at least two more times, including in June 2018, \vhen his current lawyers, Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry (HSC) appeared (C)onscnt to Change Attorney, NYSC:EF l)(lc. No. 357). By -sti1iulation dated FelJruary 28't 20 l 8't the co1nplaint -was disn1issed a5 against son1e defendants, h1cluding Tavakoli and the other individual defendants. Also, plaintifls' withdrew their111otion seeking to hold Tavakoli in contempt (NYSCEI~. Doc. No. 349 and 346). In this n1<>tion, 'ravakoli seeks an ord~r requiring KB.T to turn over his file~ According to HSC., KB]·· provided it w.ith only the n1ediation staten1cnts and some of the discovery produced in 1 2 of 5 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/31/2018 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 650340/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 392 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2018 this action. HSC asserts that KB'f~s t~1ilureto t11rn over the entire file hampers ·ravakoli's pursuit of his atl1rmatiye claii11s. l'avakoli also requests attorneys' fees for tnaking Lhis rnotion . . ravakoli clai1ns that his current coi1nsel discovered documents in the produc.tions it recievcd \Vhich indicated Tavakoli had claitns against his co-defendants, who were other clients of KB'J'. KB'f did n<lt bring the docu1nents to l'avakoli's attention (Men10 at 4-5). Kl.3~1· wanted to hold off providi11g the file until the parties had resolved their dispute through n1ediation (ii/.). 'rhe n1ediation failed. --ravakoli then rene\ved his efforts to obtain the file and I<Hl' refused, later offering to provide certain types of documents (which l1SC clai1ns have little value) if Tavakoli paid a $20,000 retainer (id.). Tavakoli declined, den1anding the complete tile. l'avakoli nO\V has an action. against co-defendants Doronin" TIIJ, Eliasch, Sher\vay, and Djanogly pending in the Southern District of l~"lorida. KBl' opposes the 1notion, claiming ·ravakoli is seeking docuinents which arc unrelated to the joint representation. He is atte1n1)ting an '"end-run'' around attorney-client privilege to get docu1nents l(>r use in its litigation in Florida (Opp at 1). KB'f has oJlered to make ·ravakoli 's file available in exchange for copying costs, and has made un-1net offers to movant to tncct and confer about this dispute (id. at 2). Tavakoli is not entitled to n1orc than that, and is not entitled to fees in bringing this unnecessary n1otion (id.). 1(13'1' clai1nsto have successfully represented Tavakoli as he \.vas dis1nissed fron1 this action in Marcl1 2018~ along ·with n1ost of the other defendants (itl. at 4, see ()rder dated March 13, 2018, NYS(~EF Doc. No. 350). ~rhcrc vvas a subsequent 1nediation (largely related to Tavakoli"s clairns against his co-deten,lants) to which KBT attended at the request of1"'avakoli. At that tilnc the issue of the file was not raised. As noted above~ the mediation was unsuccessful (Opp at 4). 2 3 of 5 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/31/2018 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 650340/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 392 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2018 I<IJ'°T~ .has agreed t~ provide Tavakoli with 1nost of the desired docurnents, subject to the provision of a retainer to cover the work of preparing the file (hi.). KBl' resists providing docurnents \.Vhich arc privileged con1lnunications \Vith c.o-defe11dants recieved prior to the joint Tepresentation as \Veil as internal law fi.rn1 docu1nents (id_ at 6-7). It relies on 1)t1ge Re1Jll)' C orr'- v 1 J>roslu1uer Rose Gt)etz & .Mentle/sohn l .. l,.J>., 91 NY2d 30, 37-38 [1997.1 [''Proskaucr ... should not be required to disclose docu1nents which might violate a duty of nondisclosure owed to a third party, or otherwise irnposcd by Ja\v .... documents intended fi-1r internal law Additionally~ nonacccss \\ ould be pern1issible as to firn1 1 office review and use . (rhe need (()r lawyers to be able to set down their thoughts privately in order to assure effective and appropriate representation warrants keeping such docurnents secret fron1 the client involved. This n1ighl include., for exan1ple, documents containing a tirtn attorney's general or other asscss1nent of the client, or tentative preliminary in1pressions or ll1e legal or factual issues presented in the representation, recorded pri111arily for the purpose of giving inten1al direction to tacilitatc performance of the legal services entailed in that representation"Hintcrnal citations and quotations on1ittcd]). Further . as tar as the expenses related to preparing the copies are concerned~ 1.i;as a general proposition~ unless a law lir1n has already been paid for assemblage and delivery of documents to lhe client., perforrning that function is properly chargeable to tl1e client under customary fee schedules of the finn, or purst:1ant to the tcrn1s of any governing retainer agrcc1ncnt" (.S'ltge Rea/(y . 91 NY2d ut 38). KBT clain1s entitlen1ent to fees work lo be perf()rn1ed 1)reparing the file f(lr Tavakoli's ne\v counsel. Finally, there is no basis for a\varding movant his expenses f(>r bringing this 1notion. If anyone gets fees, it should be KBT. ]'he n1otion is granted in part and othervlise denied in accordance with the transcript dated August 28, 2016 on condition that Tavakoli n1ake a deposit in an an1ount detern1ined by KB'r to 3 4 of 5 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/31/2018 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 650340/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 392 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/31/2018 cover the tin1e and expense required to asse111ble and provide the requested and approved docu111ents. KB'r shall not be required to produce ESl, collected by KB'f ii"·orn cu-defendants then represented by th_e fir1n \vhich ESI \.Vas deemed non-responsive. l'he request f()r an award of attorney· lees is denied. 'This constitutes the decision and order of the court. J)A. rEI>: August 30, 2018 0. PE]"ER SHERWOOD J.S.C~. 4 5 of 5

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.