BEN RUBINGWITS i } WBINOW TH, BLOOM oo Ai i iy i fe a en ANTHONY GAIR ord □□ ALE! ry BLOCM HOWARD S. HERSHENHOIN* eo fs wy EA a fo hy ijnygre : STEPIIEN EL MACKAUE we «| “SY A Gt (0 | “ | HERS MENEHORN . M. STRIGMAN SPTELGMAN & M ACKAU F DIANA M.A. CAKRNEMOLLA® PETER AG Sn SAG RS SAAS GR APS MS RE hr EEL gr teeeHo patna □□□□□ □□ □□□□ □□ □□ □□ □□ RERLER Counselors at Law New Jersey Office j. DONADIO* . □ DANIEL L. BROOK, MD, FD 80 Pine Street, 347TH FLOOR One Gareway Center, Str. □□□□ RACHEL L. JACOBS New York, NY 10005 Niw an. NJ □□□ pee . TEL: 073.645.0581 §. RUBINOWETZ aL: 213-943_1¢ LARKIN foe “| 5 ee Pax: 973-622-2160 L. LEVINE AX? 212-425-7513 ZELIKOVEIC www, gairpair.com □ MEMBER OF N.Y □ □□ BARS 1. SUNSHINE, MI) FACS. August 24, 202] BY ELECTRONIC FILING Hon, Lewis A. Kaplan Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Peart Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Anthony Rapp v. Kevin Spacey Fowler a/k/a Kevin Spacey Southern District of New York, Case No. 1,20-cv-09586 (LAK) Dear Judge Kaplan: As Your Honor is aware, my office represents Mr. Rapp in the above-referenced matter. My office served Plaintiffs’ First Notice to Produce Regarding Jurisdictional Discovery (hereinafter “Notice for Jurisdictional Discovery”) over six (6) months ago on February 5, 2020.! On August 16. 2021, after multiple meet and confers, defendant Spacey finally made a purported final production that is still incomplete. Defendant Spacey refuses to respond to several demands bearing directly on the issue of jurisdiction. Spacey’s continued refusal is contrary to both your Honor’s Order of January 5, 2021, which permitted Mr. Rapp “to seek evidence bearing on the domicile question. ..proportional to the needs of resolving the jurisdictional issue,” ECF No. 17, and case law in the Souther District of New York. Therefore, the instant letter motion has become necessary. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit “a party to serve on any other party a request for documents and electronically stored information within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) that are in its ‘possession, custody, or control,” New Falls Corp. v. Soni, No. 16-cv-6805 ADS/AKT, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94747 at *8 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020): Fed. R. Civ. P. 34fa)([)(A). The scope of permissible discovery is outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(bi(1): “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ ' Plaintiffs’ First Notice to Produce Regarding Jurisdictional Discovery is attached as Exhibit A. Defendant Spacey’s deficient responses are collectively attached as Exhibit B. Memorandum Endorsement Rapp v Fowler, 20-cv-9586 (LAK) Plaintiff's motion to compel additional jurisdictional discovery (Dkt 81) is granted to this extent: In lieu of producing documents in response to Request Nos. 17 through 20, defendant shall provide plaintiff with a declaration containing a list of each of the four categories of professionals as to which documents were sought. The list shall identify the professionals only by letters unique to each rather than by names and shall give the location of each professional only by identifying the city or county in which that professional was consulted or seen. The motion is denied in all other respects, although plaintiff may inquire at depositions concerning the subjects of Request Nos. 8, 22 and 23. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 27, 2021 > Lewis A. Kap¥n United States District Judge