Kleeberg et al v. Eber et al
Filing
215
OPINION AND ORDER. CNB's Motion for a Protective Order is granted. This resolves the issues raised in Docket Nos. 208, 209, and 213. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/9/19) (yv)
Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 215 Filed 05/09/19 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
05/09/2019
DANIEL KLEEBERG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
16-CV-9517 (LAK) (KHP)
OPINION AND ORDER
-againstLESTER EBER, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs Daniel Kleeberg, Lisa Stein, and Audrey Hays and Defendant Lester Eber are
beneficiaries to the testamentary trust created upon the death of Allen Eber (the “Trust”). 1
(Doc. No. 135, 3.) The Trust held/holds certain assets, including all of the voting stock in the
Eber Family’s wine and liquor distribution business, Defendant Eber Bros. & Co., Inc. (“EB&C”).
EB&C’s direct and indirect subsidiaries are/were Eber Bros. Wine and Liquor Corporation
(“EBWLC”), Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Metro, Inc. (“Eber Metro”), and Eber-Connecticut, LLC
(“Eber-CT”) (collectively, the “Eber Entities”). Lester Eber, Intervenor Defendant Canandaigua
National Corporation d/b/a Canandaigua National Bank & Trust (“CNB”), and Elliot Gumaer
(who died during the pendency of this action), were trustees of the Trust. Lester Eber also
served as an officer of all of the Eber Entities.
1
Allen Eber’s three children, Sally Kleeberg, Mildred Boslov, and Lester Eber, were the original beneficiaries of the
Trust. (Doc. No. 88-1; see also Doc. No. 135, 3.) Upon Sally Kleeberg’s death, her children, Lisa and Daniel, became
beneficiaries of the Trust. (Id.) Likewise, upon Mildred Boslov’s death, her daughter, Audrey, became a Trust
beneficiary. (Id.)
Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 215 Filed 05/09/19 Page 2 of 7
Plaintiffs claim that Lester Eber, together with other Defendants, engaged in self-dealing
in breach of his fiduciary duties to them, and deprived them of their inheritance by
orchestrating the transfer of Eber-CT out of the Trust to a company that he created and
privately holds, Defendant Alexbay, LLC.
In the summer of 2017, CNB petitioned the Surrogate’s Court for Monroe County for an
order terminating the Trust and distributing its assets to the beneficiaries proportionally to
their respective interests in the Trust. Notice of the Petition was served on all co-trustees and
beneficiaries, including Plaintiffs and Defendant Lester Eber. The Surrogate’s Court granted
CNB’s Petition. In its Order, the Court noted that Lester Eber did not object to any aspect of the
Petition. Lester Eber also did not appeal the Order. CNB subsequently made some minor
adjustments to the final accounting of the Trust assets based on discussions with Lester Eber’s
attorneys and distributed some of those assets in October of 2017.
CNB, which was named as a Defendant in this action initially, reached a settlement with
Plaintiffs and was dismissed with prejudice. Defendants received information about the terms
of the settlement and signed the Stipulation of Partial Dismissal as against CNB. (Doc. No. 117.)
In December of 2018, Lester Eber attempted to transfer the remaining shares of EB&C stock to
himself from CNB. CNB was then forced to intervene and rejoin this action due to the
conflicting instructions it received about the distribution of EB&C stock from Plaintiffs and
Lester Eber. Plaintiffs also seek to amend their Second Amended Complaint to add claims
concerning, inter alia, Lester’s attempt to block the distribution of EB&C stock. (Doc. No. 164.)
On April 4, 2019, Defendants noticed a deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(6) (the “Deposition”) that seeks information regarding the Trust and its
2
Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 215 Filed 05/09/19 Page 3 of 7
termination.2 The Deposition Notice seeks information about: (1) CNB’s role in holding, voting,
and transferring or otherwise handling any capital stock of EB&C; (2) all matters relating to the
Surrogate’s Court case and all matters relating to the transfer restrictions set forth in Article XII
of the EB&C By-laws; (3) Administration of the EBWLC Pension Plan; (4) the terms of the CNB
settlement agreement with Plaintiffs; and (5) the manner in which CNB verified that Lisa Stein
and Daniel Kleeberg are successors in interest to Sally Kleeberg’s rights as a Trust beneficiary
and shareholder of EB&C. Notably, Rick Hawkes, a former Trust officer from CNB, was already
deposed in this matter for more than seven hours about CNB’s administration and dissolution
of the Trust, and Lester Eber had full notice of the Surrogate’s Court proceeding and attended
that proceeding with counsel. Additionally, Defendants were provided the terms of Plaintiffs’
settlement with CNB.
CNB seeks a protective order precluding the Noticed Deposition pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C). It argues that the Notice seeks information that is not
relevant to claims or defenses and/or is not proportional to the needs of the case given that
Defendants already received information relating to most of the Notice topics and had a full
opportunity to depose the person from CNB most knowledgeable about the Trust and its
dissolution – Mr. Hawkes. Plaintiffs also object to the Noticed Deposition for similar reasons.
The Court held a telephonic conference regarding the Motion on May 8, 2019, during which
2
Rule 30(b)(6) permits a notice of deposition to be directed to an organization. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). The party
seeking the deposition “must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.” Id. (emphasis
added). The named organization then must designate one or more persons to testify on its behalf concerning the
topics set forth in the deposition notice. See id. “The persons designated must testify about information known or
reasonably available to the organization.” Id. (emphasis added). Once a designated witness testifies on behalf of
the company, the testimony is binding on the company. See Reilly v. Natwest Markets Grp. Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 268
(2d Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by Hernandez v. Jrpac Inc., No. 14 Civ. 4176
(PAE), 2016 WL 3248493, at *35 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016); Kyoei Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. M/V Maritime Antalya,
248 F.R.D. 126, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
3
Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 215 Filed 05/09/19 Page 4 of 7
the parties supplemented the arguments in their letter briefs. (Doc. Nos. 208, 209, and 213.)
After hearing from the parties, the Court granted CNB’s motion. The following sets forth the
Court’s reasoning.
DISCUSSION
In evaluating any discovery dispute, the court must determine whether the information
sought is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). When
assessing proportionality, the court considers “the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the
parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. The party
moving to compel bears the initial burden of demonstrating relevance and proportionality. See
Johnson v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., LLC, No. 16 Civ. 1805 (JPO)(JCF), 2017 WL 3055098, at
*2–3 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017).
Once relevance of the information sought or an adequate factual basis for the collateral
issue discovery has been shown, the burden falls on the responding party to justify curtailing
discovery. See Rosas v. Alice’s Tea Cup, LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 4, 8 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Fireman’s Fund
Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 284 F.R.D. 132, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “In order to
justify withholding relevant information, the party resisting discovery must show good cause,
the standard for issuance of a protective order under Rule 26(c).” Johnson, 2017 WL 3055098,
at *3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New
4
Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 215 Filed 05/09/19 Page 5 of 7
Horizont, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 227, 233 n.4 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (treating motion to compel and motion for
protective order as “mirror-image[s]”).
Under Rule 26(b)(2)(C):
[T]he court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery when:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,
or can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party
seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the
information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,
considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.
In re Weatherford Int’l Sec. Litig., No. 11 Civ. 1646 (LAK)(JCF), 2013 WL 2355451, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
May 28, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, “the court
ultimately weighs the interests of both sides in fashioning an order.” See Duling v. Gristede’s
Operating Corp., 266 F.R.D. 66, 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citation omitted).
In this case, the protective order is warranted for several reasons. To start, Defendants
had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery already conducted in this action
through the deposition it took of CNB’s witness, Rick Hawkes. Indeed, Hawkes already provided
at least some information concerning Topics 1 (CNB’s role in holding, voting and transferring or
otherwise handling any capital stock of EB&C), 2 (all matters relating to the Surrogate’s Court
case, all matters relating to the transfer restrictions set forth in Article XII of the EB&C By-laws),
and 5 (the manner in which CNB verified that Lisa Stein and Daniel Kleeberg are successors in
interest to Sally Kleeberg’s rights as a Trust beneficiary and shareholder of EB&C) in the
Deposition Notice. In this regard, the Deposition Notice seeks information that is duplicative
and therefore necessarily not proportional to the needs of this case.
5
Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 215 Filed 05/09/19 Page 6 of 7
On the call with the Court, Defendants claimed that they need information about what
CNB did after Lester Eber asserted that CNB could not distribute shares of EB&C stock in the
manner ordered by the Surrogate’s Court. Specifically, Defendants argued that CNB might have
information about the EB&C By-laws that is pertinent to Lester Eber’s request that CNB transfer
all EB&C shares to him rather than distributing a portion to Plaintiffs. However, Defendants are
in possession of information regarding EB&C’s corporate structure and By-laws. Indeed, Lester
Eber, as an officer and president of the Eber Entities, is in the best position to explain the basis
of his directions to and request of CNB. CNB has already provided all of the information it has
regarding its understanding of the appropriate distribution of Trust assets and presented that
information to the Surrogate’s Court and provided witnesses to testify about this topic.
Defendants also have received information about Topic 4 (the terms of the CNB
settlement agreement with Plaintiffs). Therefore, deposition testimony on this topic is also
duplicative and not proportional to the needs of the case.
Finally, Defendants have not explained why Topic 3 (Administration of the EBWLC
Pension Plan) is relevant to this action, which involves alleged self-dealing by Trust fiduciaries.
There is no claim against CNB or any other party to this suit for breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the Pension Plan. Thus, deposition testimony on this topic is outside the
scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26(b)(1).
CONCLUSION
For all the above reasons, CNB’s Motion for a Protective Order is granted. This resolves
the issues raised in Docket Nos. 208, 209, and 213.
6
Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 215 Filed 05/09/19 Page 7 of 7
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
May 9, 2019
New York, New York
_____________________________
Katharine H. Parker
U.S. Magistrate Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?