Opinion

W . 140 Grand Street, Suite 705, White Plains, New York 10601

vankwitt 3 | t 914.686.1500 + f 914.487.5000 - www.yankwitt.com |

May 8, 2026

a MEMO ENDORSED

Honorable Jessica G. L. Clarke

United States District Judge

Southern District of New York

300 Quarropas Street

White Plains, NY 10601

Re: 3086 Purchase LLC v. The Town/Village of Harrison, et al.,

No. 7:25-cv-9917-JGLC

Dear Judge Clarke:

Pursuant to Local Rule 37.2 and Rule 4(k) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices

in Civil Cases, Defendant Old Oaks Country Club, Inc. (the “Club”) submits this letter jointly with

Defendants the Town/Village of Harrison, Andrea Rendo, and Rocco Germani (“Town

Defendants”) to respectfully renew their request to stay discovery pending resolution of their fully

briefed motion to dismiss. We have conferred with counsel for Plaintiff 3086 Purchase LLC

(‘Plaintiff’), which has set forth its position below.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(a)(1) and Individual Rule 4(k), the Club, Plaintiff, and the

Town Defendants held a telephonic meet and confer on May 4, 2026, at 4:00 p.m, which lasted for

approximately 15 minutes. Counsel involved included Jason Swergold and Edward Phillips for

the Club, Tyler Halloran and Kate Hunt for Plaintiff, and Steven Harfenist for the Town

Defendants. With the benefit of the parties’ recently completed briefing, the Club and Town

Defendants renewed their contention that discovery should be stayed. Plaintiffs position is that

discovery should not be stayed.

Defendants’ Position

First, as demonstrated by the Club’s fully briefed motion to dismiss, incorporated by

reference herein, Plaintiff's claims are subject to dismissal. In denying the initial motion to stay

discovery, the Court found that the Club had “filed a potentially meritorious motion [to dismiss]”

but was unable to “fully assess” the merits of the motion to dismiss without Plaintiffs opposition.

With the benefit of full briefing (see ECF Nos. 34, 48, 52), the Court can now assess the motion

to dismiss, which demonstrates that Plaintiff's claims are completely without merit, and in

particular, Plaintiff's RICO claim is frivolous.

Second, conducting document discovery and depositions in this case would be

unreasonably burdensome. The Club and Plaintiff are still litigating a New York State court action

in which Plaintiff has asserted nuisance and trespass claims against the Club, which has required

the Club to collect hundreds of thousands of electronic documents from five different custodians.

The court has ordered party depositions to proceed on May 15, 18 and 19, 2026. Plaintiff has

Honorable Jessica G. L. Clarke □□

May 8, 2026 Mi

Page 2 of 4

taken the same scorched-earth approach to discovery in this case, requesting 19 overbroad

categories of documents, and will likely seek to depose numerous Club members whose only

connection to Plaintiffs meritless allegations about a children’s playhouse is their membership at

Old Oaks.! Given the frivolous nature of Plaintiffs claims in this case, a stay is appropriate to

protect Oak Oaks against what will otherwise be unnecessary and significant litigation expenses.

Third, as the Court previously observed, Plaintiff “has not demonstrated a particular risk

of unfair prejudice.” (ECF No. 45).

The Town Defendants’ briefing likewise establishes that Plaintiffs claims against them

should be dismissed. Moreover, the prosecutorial and qualified immunity defenses asserted by the

Town prosecutor and building inspector weigh heavily in favor of a stay because such defenses

are intended to protect them not just from liability, but also from “the burdens of discovery.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009).

Plaintiff’s Position

As the Court recognized in its Order denying Old Oaks’ first motion to stay discovery,

“[t]he filing of a motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery.” ECF No. 45 at 1.

Courts consider: (1) whether a defendant has made a “strong showing” that claims are

unmeritorious, (2) the breadth and burden of discovery, and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice. Jd.

As before, each factor disfavors a stay.

Defendants still fail to make a strong showing that Plaintiff’s claims are

unmeritorious. Old Oaks claims that Plaintiff's Opposition makes clear that its claims are

unmeritorious—but notably fails to point to a single fact or legal argument justifying its claim. As

explained in the Opposition, there is ample evidence of coordination between Old Oaks and the

Town, including, inter alia, (1) Old Oaks’ counsel’s contemporaneous email correspondence

regarding the subject matter of the violations around the time of the issuance of the November

2024 Summons, (2) that Plaintiff's Property was viewed from Old Oaks, (3) that the November

2024 Summons was issued without providing an opportunity to cure immediately after Plaintiff

filed the Article 78 proceeding relating to Old Oaks, and (4) that the code enforcement officer who

stated that he “brought back what was asked of [him] to bring back.” See ECF No. 48 (“Opp.”) at

34-37.

Notably, Old Oaks has attached to its reply email correspondence between Mr. Ward-

Willis and Town officials—which relates to “tree removal permits” and “tree permits” on

Plaintiff's Property—that is dated immediately before, during, and after the November 2024

Summons was issued. See ECF No. 53-1 at 3, 5. This email correspondence extinguishes any

doubt Mr. Ward-Willis was involved in the issuance of the retaliatory November 2024 Summons.

Moreover, Mr. Ward-Willis requested all of Plaintiff's building permits, id. at 3, which confirms

that he was working with the Town to hoover up information that he could use against Plaintiff.

' Indeed, in the criminal case pending against Plaintiff in the Town/Village of Harrison Justice

Court, Plaintiff has issued improper subpoenas for documents and phone records for ten Club

members, all of which are subject to pending motions to quash.

Honorable Jessica G. L. Clarke □□

May 8, 2026 Mi

Page 3 of 4

See Anilao v. Spota, 774 F. Supp. 2d 457, 499 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (“When the private actor takes a

more active role, however, and jointly engages in action with state actors, he will be found to be a

state actor.”).

Moreover, in the Town Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions, the

Town admitted that the playhouse was measured and confirmed to be under 15 feet—yet,

shockingly, the Town has not dismissed the charge. See Exhibit A at No. 24 (admitting that a code

enforcement officer measured the playhouse and “confirmed that the Playhouse is less than 15 feet

tall”). To be clear, this means that the Town is currently prosecuting Plaintiff for_a charge

that it has admitted to be false. Even worse, Defendant Rendo appeared in court on April 30,

2026 (three days after the Town and Defendant Germani admitted the playhouse is under 15 feet)

and confirmed readiness to proceed to trial on the demonstrably false charge. This confirms the

Town and Defendant Rendo’s bad faith in prosecuting Plaintiff, requiring exception from the

Younger doctrine. See Opp. at 13-14.

Defendants do not even dispute that the Town acted in retaliation for the Article 78 filing,

and so Plaintiff's First Amendment claim cannot be dismissed unless the Court finds that a

reasonable jury could not find that the code enforcement officer lacked probable cause. /d. at 30.

The Town’s admission that the playhouse is under 15 feet further demonstrates the lack of probable

cause—because if the code enforcement officer originally had measured the playhouse directly on

site as is customary (and not only viewed it from hundreds of feet away on a neighboring property,

i.e., Old Oaks, which Defendants would have the Court believe had no involvement in this

retaliation) he would have confirmed that the playhouse is not over 15 feet tall (as he later did).

See id. at 28-30.

The Town Defendants’ arguments favoring a stay make no sense. First, they forget that

they did not raise any qualified immunity defense in their motion to dismiss. See generally ECF

No. 38. Second, the Town Defendants also forget that Defendant Germani did not even raise a

qualified immunity defense in his Answer. See ECF No. 29 at 12-13. And Third, Defendant

Rendo’s prosecutorial immunity defense does not warrant a stay for all the reasons explained in

the Opposition, but particularly because it has no impact on Plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief.

See Opp. at 16-22. And none of these immunities would function to dismiss Plaintiffs claims

against the Town—meaning even if all of them applied (they do not), discovery still should not be

stayed.

At bottom, Defendants have made no effort to explain to the Court why Plaintiff's

Opposition strongly shows that Plaintiffs claims are unmeritorious—and its conclusory argument

is contradicted by the allegations in the Complaint and the discovery that has occurred to date.

Defendants fail to show any particular burden of responding to discovery. As before,

the Court found previously, “Defendants have not demonstrated any particular burden in

responding to discovery.” ECF No. 45 at 1. The state court litigation involves claims of nuisance,

trespass, and negligence arising from Old Oaks’ golf ball incursions, unauthorized water diversion,

and unauthorized construction. By contrast, this litigation concerns the enforcement of violations

relating to conditions on Plaintiff's Property. Old Oaks claims that discovery will be burdensome

merely because Plaintiff served 19 document requests and will seek depositions is unsupported by

Honorable Jessica G. L. Clarke □□

May 8, 2026 Mi

Page 4 of 4

any authority suggesting that amount of discovery would be burdensome. Simply put, Old Oaks

“makes no claim that discovery is likely to be particularly broad or that they will face any particular

burden in responding to requests.” Celebrity Fund Management LLC v. Humans, Inc., 1:24-cv-

05282, ECF No. 33 at 1-2 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (Clarke, J.).

Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a stay. The little discovery that has occurred to date has

already confirmed that the Town is prosecuting a false charge against Plaintiff. See Exhibit A at

No. 24 (admitting the playhouse is under 15 feet). The Town Defendants have refused to answer

nearly every other of Plaintiff’'s Requests for Admissions on dubious grounds. Three examples,

of many, include that the Town refused to admit or deny that: (1) the Town provided Mr. Ward-

Willis access to documents regarding Plaintiff in November 2024 (despite that documents

reflecting this fact have been filed on the docket by Old Oaks), (2) that a code enforcement officer

did not visit Plaintiffs Property to inspect the playhouse prior to issuance (remarkably, on the

grounds that the term “visit” is vague), and (3) that other properties in Harrison do not have

playhouses under 15 feet tall (because the Town “lacks knowledge...after a reasonable inquiry”).

See Ex. A at No. 12, 18, 42.2 Now, Defendants seek to stay discovery before discovery reveals

further evidence that the Town is prosecuting a retaliatory and false charge against Plaintiff in

coordination with Old Oaks.

Simply put, Plaintiff “would suffer prejudice from a stay, as it would delay [its] ability to

gather relevant evidence needed to prosecute [its] claims[.]” Khan, 757 F. Supp. 3d at 336

(collecting cases).

Respectfully submitted,

YANKWITT LLP

By: M

ussell M. Yankvwftt

Jason M. Swergold

Counsel for Old Oaks Country Club, Inc.

ce: All counsel

Application DENIED. The Court already ruled on Defendants’ requested stay of discovery.

Discovery shall proceed as ordered. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 54.

SOQ.ORDERED

C Me aca LLarke

JESSICA G. L. CLARKE

United States District Judge

Dated: May 11, 2026

White Plains, New York

? Plaintiff has reached out to the Town Defendants’ counsel to meet and confer regarding their responses and hopes

to avoid burdening the Court with a discovery dispute.