Court Grants Motion To Compel And Suggests Striking of Pleadings Would Be Appropriate If Order Is Not Complied With

Posted: March 27, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane, Joshua Wurtzel / Categories Commercial, Motion to Compel, Discovery/Disclosure

Court Grants Motion To Compel And Suggests Striking of Pleadings Would Be Appropriate If Order Is Not Complied With

On March 2, 2026, in Haruvi v. Hungerford, Index. No. 651033/2022, Justice Andrew Borrok granted plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents based on defendant’s improper withholding of documents as privileged without basis to do so. The Court explained:

During the parties’ initial exchange of documents in August 2025, Mr. Hungerford withheld over 10,000 documents based on broad assertions of the attorney-client privilege. However, his privilege log (NYSCEF Doc. No. 465) was categorical and did not provide sufficient information for Ms. Haruvi to challenge any improper assertion of privilege. Subsequently, Mr. Hungerford provided an itemized privilege log (NYSCEF Doc. No. 467) revealing that Mr. Hungerford withheld communications with third parties and without proper explanation as to why the privilege would extend to any such third parties, including, between (i) Mr. Hungerford and Shai Segev (id. at 1, 26-27, 32-33, 59-60, 67, 73, 75, 93, 95, 164-165, and 173), (ii) Shai Segev and Aileen Haruvi (id. at 26, 31-32, 34, and 67), (iii) Mr. Hungerford and Abe Haruvi (id. at 26-27, 51, 54, and 67), (iv) Mr. Hungerford and real estate brokers (id. at 31), (v) and among PH Realty employees (id. at 26, 34, and 60), (vi) Mr. Hungerford and Meyer Mintz and other business associates (id. at 18, 27, and 32), and (vii) Mr. Hungerford and other third parties (id. at 1, 5, 63, 65-66, 68, and 151), where no attorneys appear to have been included in the communications. Additionally, Mr. Hungerford withheld documents between his lawyers at Goldberg Weprin and Cole Schotz relating to what he claims were several negotiated arms-length transactions with Simry Realty and Arthur Haruvi.

Mr. Hungerford offers no legally cognizable basis upon which these documents were not produced in good faith based on the assertion of privilege. He does not ask the Court to review in camera any of them. Instead, he claims that he now cannot produce these documents because he is fighting with his own ESI provider, among other things, because of their bill.

This self-created dispute does not shield Mr. Hungerford from complying with his discovery obligations in this case (see U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v GreenPoint Mtge. Funding, Inc., 94 AD3d 58, 63 [1st Dept 2012] [providing that each party should generally bear the expenses it incurs in responding to discovery requests]; see also Lopez v Don Herring Ltd., 327 FRD 567, 581 [ND Tex 2018] [providing that a party has an independent obligation to respond to discovery demands]). As such, Mr. Hungerford has not met his burden to demonstrate that the attorney client privilege applies to these documents and they must be produced (Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 NY3d 616, 624 [2016]).

Additionally, the Hungerford Defendants have not complied with the supplemental production that was ordered by the Court (NYSCEF Doc. No. 398) in its Order dated October 29, 2025. This was a clear and unequivocal mandate requiring production. Given the admonition of the Court, the order appears to have been willfully and contumaciously flouted in attempt to stymie discovery in this case (El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Continental Industries Grp., Inc. v. Ustuntas, 173 A.D.3d 419, 420 (1st Dep’t 2019); Maxim Inc. v. Gross, 179 A.D.3d 536, 537 [1st Dep’t 2020]; Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd. v Mo [N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County 2025]).

Thus, the branch of Ms. Haruvi’s motion seeking to compel the production of documents from the Hungerford Defendants is GRANTED. The Hungerford Defendants are directed to produce these documents no later than March 27, 2026, otherwise, Ms. Haruvi may move for all appropriate relief including striking their pleadings.

(footnote omitted).

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning motions to compel and discovery.