6.13.14 foundations motion to quash syncora subpoena

5/24/2018 6.13.14 Foundations Motion to Quash Syncora Subpoena

UNITEDSTATESBANKRUPTCY COURTEASTERN DISTRICTOFMICHIGANSOUTHERN IVISION DETROIT

I n r e Chapter 9CITYOFDETROIT MICHIGAN C ase No. 13-53846

Debtor. Hon. Steven W. hodes

JOINTMOTIONOFCOMMUNITYFOUNDATIONFORSOUTHEAST MICHIGANWILLIAMDAVIDSONFOUNDATION HEFRED A.AND BARBARA M. RBFAMILYFOUNDATION M XM.AND MARJORIE .FISHERFOUNDATIONFORDFOUNDATION UDSON-WEBBERFOUNDATION HE KRESGE

FOUNDATION .K.KELLOGGFOUNDATION OHN .AND JAMES .KNIGHTFOUNDATION MCGREGOR UND CHARLESSTEWARTMOTT OUNDATION

AND A.PAULAND CAROLC.SCHAAP FOUNDATIONTOQUASHSUBPOENASDUCESTECUM

Community Foundation o r S o u t h e a s t Michigan( CF SM ), illiam DavidsonFoundation t h e Davidson o u n d a t i o n ) ,The Fred A. nd Barbara M. r b Family Foundation( t h e E r b Foundation ),Max M. nd M a r j o r i e S. i s h e r Foundation t h e F i s h e r Foundat ion ),Ford Foundation, Hudson- W e b b e r Foundation,The Kresge Foundation,W.K. elloggFoundation t h e Kellogg F o u n d a t i o n ) , John S. nd James L. Knight Foundation t h e KnightFoundation ), McGregor Fund, h a r l e s Stewart Mott Foundation t h e Mott oundation )andA. aul and Carol C . Schaap Foundation t h e Schaap Foundation, and o l l e c t i v e l y w i t h CFSMt h e Davidson Foundation, h e Erb Foundation, h e F i s h e r Foundation, ord Foundation,Hudson-W e b b e r Foundation, The Kresge Foundation , h e Kellogg Foundation, h e Knight Foundation,McGregor Fund, nd h e Mott oundation, h e Foundations )h ere by o i n t l y move o quash h esubpoenas s s u e d on June 4, 014, y Syncora C a p i t a l Assurance, n c . and Syncora Guarantee,I n c . c o l l e c t i v e l y , Syncora ), p u r s u a n t t o L.B.R. 0 1 4 - 1 ( h ) , Bankruptcy Rules 7026 and 9016

13-53846-swr Doc 5300 Filed 06/13/14 Entered 06/13/14 08:40:24 Page 1 of 221353846140613000000000003

Docket #5300 Date Filed: 6/13/


and F e d e r a l Rules of i v i l Procedure 26 and 45. I n accordance w i t h L.B.R. 9 0 1 4 - 1 h ) , counself o r t h e Foundations sought concurrence i n t h e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f from Syncora s counsel byt e l e p h o n e on June 10, 2014, which wa s d e n i e d ; Counsel o r t h e Foundations and Syncora a g r e e d ,however, h a t t h e d i s c o v e r y sought by Syncora which i s t h e s u b j e c t of h i s motion, would notoccur on t h e d a t e s scheduled, and t h a t , s u b j e c t t o agreement of h e Court, h i s motion would beh e a r d on an e x p e d i t e d b a s i s on J u n e 26,2014.A u p p o r t i n g b r i e f s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e grounds f o rt h i s motion i s f i l e d h e r e w i t h , and a proposed o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e r e l i e f sought s a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a sE x h i b i t 1 . L.B.R. 0 1 4 - 1 b ) 1 ) .

PLUNKETTCOONEY/ s / Douglas C. e r n s t e i n (P33833)A t t o r n e y s f o r CFSM h e DavidsonFoundation, h e Erb Foundation, h e F i s h e rFoundation, Ford Foundation, Hudson-WebberFoundation, h e Kellogg Foundation,McGregor Fu nd, h e Mott Foundation and t h eS c ha a p Foundation38505 Wood w a r d Ave., t e . 2000Bloomfield H i l l s , Michigan 48304(248) [email protected] ounsel

WINSTON TRAWNLLPHarvey KurzweilNew York S t a t e Bar No. 1251610D e s i r e e M. i poNew York S t a t e B a r No. 4589552A t t o r n e y s f o r T h e Kresge Foundation20 0 Park A v e n u eNew York,New York 10166-4193(212)294-6700HKu rzwe il @ wins ton. comDM R i po@ wi n s ton . com

2



June 12, 2 0 1 4

3

andBILZIN SUMBERG BAENA RICEAXELRODLLP

R a f a e l R. i b e i r oThe F l o r i d a Bar No. 896241Michael N r e i t z e rThe F l o r i d a Bar No. 705561A t t o r n e y s f o r t h e Knight Foundation1450 B r i c k e l l Avenue, u i t e 2300Miami, l o r i d a 33131-3456305)350-7312305)350-2384r r i b e i r o @ b i l z i n c o [email protected]



UNITED STATESBANKRUPTCYCOURTEASTERN DISTRICT OFMICHIGANSOUTHERN IVISION DETROIT

I n r e Chapter 9

CITYOFDETROIT MICHIGAN Case No. 13 53846

Debtor. Hon. Steven W. hodes

BRIEFINSUPPORTOFJOINTMOTIONOFCOMMUNITYFOUNDATION FORSOUTHEAST MICHIGAN WILLIAM DAVIDSON FOUNDATION HEFRED A.ANDBARBARA M. RBFAMILYFOUNDATION M X .AND MARJORIE .FISHERFOUNDATION ORDFOUNDATION UDSON-WEBBERFOUNDATION THE

KRESGEFOUNDATION .K.KELLOGGFOUNDATION OHN .AND JAMES .KNIGHTFOUNDATION MCGREGOR UND CHARLESSTEWARTMOTTFOUNDATION AND .PAULANDC ROL .SCHAAP FOUNDATION

TOQUASHSUBPOENASDUCESTECUM



TABLEOFCONTENTS

PageCONCISESTATEMENTOFTHE SSUESPRESENTED I ICONTROLLINGOR MOSTAPPROPRIATEAUTHORITYFOR THERELIEFSOUGHT.. I IINDEXTOAUTHORITIES IVPRELIMINARYSTATEMENT 1STATEMENTOFMATERIALFACTS 2ARGUMENT 4

I SYNCORA SSUBPOENAS ASTO THEFOUNDATIONSSHOULDBE QUASHEDFORMULTIPLEREASONS 4A Governing Standards 4B p p l i c a t i o n 6

1 The Subpoenas d o not seek d i s c o v e r y of e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n 72 The Subpoenas r e overbroad and would impo se an undu e burden 93 The Subpoenas e q u i r e d i s c l o s u r e of r i v i l e g e d o r o t h e r p r o t e c t e d m a t t e r 10

I I THECOURT SHOULD W RDTHE FOUNDATIONSATTORNEYSFEESINCURRED NCONNECTION WITH HIS MOTION. 11

CONCLUSION 12



CONCISESTATEMENTOFTHEISSUESPRESENTED

WHETHERSYNCORA SSUBPOENASASTOTHEFOUNDATIONSSHOULDBEQUASHED?

WHETHERTHECOURTSHOULD W RDTHEFOUNDATIONSATTORNEYSFEESINCURRED NCONNECTIONWITH IS MOTION?

i i



CONTROLLING RMOST PPROPRI TE UTHORITYFORTHERELIEFSOUGHT

F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 6

F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 45



INDEXTO UTHORITIES

CASESPage

Bogosian Woloohojian R e a l t y C o r p . ,323 F.3d 55,66 1 s t Cir.2003) 4

Compaq omputer Corp. Packard e l l E l e c . , I n c . ,163 F.R.D. 329, 335- 36 N . D . a l . 1995) 10

Cook Howard,484 Fed. Appx. 805,812 4th C i r . Aug. 24,2012) 5

E.E.O.C. Jack Marshall Foods, n c . ,No . 09-0160WSM, 0 1 0 WL 5635, t *6 S.D. Ala. a n . 4 , 2010) 9

E.E.O.C. O r i g i n a l Honeybaked Ham o. of eorgia, n c . ,No . 11cv-02560MSKMEH, 012 WL 34312, t *3 D . Colo. Mar.19, 2012) 8

E.E.O.C. S . Haulers, LLC,No . 11-00564N,2012 WL 768064, t *3-4 S.D.Ala. May 7, 2012) 8

Echostar Communications The News C o r p . , L t d . ,180 F.R.D. 391, 394 D . Colo. 1998) 6

H herer LLC Natural Mol ecular T e s t i n g C o r p . ,292 F.R.D. 305, 308 D.S.C. 2013) 5

Herbert Lando,441 U.S. 153, 177 1979) 6

Hofer Mack r u c k s , I n c . ,981 F.2d 377,380 8th C i r . 1992) 5

Imnaedaft, t d . v The n t e l l i g e n c e O f f i c e System,Case No . 1:2008-cv-01596,2 0 0 9 WL 537975,6 D . o l o . , 2009) 6

In r e Subpoena Duces Tecum t o AOL, . L . C . ,5 5 0 F.Supp.2d 606,612 ED. a. 2008) 4

I n n o v a t i v e T h e r a p i e s , I n c . v Meents,Case No . 2012-cv-03309, 2014 WL 58651, 17 D . M d . , 2014) 4

L i l e s v S t u a r t Weitzman, LLC,No . 9-61448CIV,2010 WL 839229, t *3 S.D. l a . May , 2010) 9Medical Co mponents, n c . v C l a s s i c a l Medical, n c . ,

210 F.R.D. 175, 180 . 9 M . D .N . C . 2 0 02) 6Nicholas W y n d h a m n t l , I n c . ,

373 F.3d 537, 543 4th Cir.2004)

i v13-53846-swr Doc 5300 Filed 06/13/14 Entered 06/13/14 08:40:24 Page 8 of 22


Premer . C o r e s t a f f e r v s . , L . P . ,232 F.R.D. 692, 93 M.D . la.2005)

Regan-Touchy . Walgreen Co.,526 F.3d 641, 48-49 10th C i r . 2008) 6

Rivera . Nibco,364 F.3d 1057, 1072 9th C i r . 2004 ) 6

Sanders . D a l c r a f t , LLCN o . 3-09CV-0307--P, 20 0 9 WL 392602, t *2 N . D . Tex. May 8,2009) 9

Schaaf . SmithKline Beecham Corp.,233 F.R.D. 451, 5 3 E.D.N.C. 200 5 ) 5

Serrano . C i n t a s Corp.,699 F.3d 884, 0 1 6th C i r . 2012) 5

RULESF e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 26 i i 4,F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 26 c) 6F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 2 6 b ) 1 ) 6F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 26 c) 1) A) 5F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 3 0 b ) 6 ) 2F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 3 7 a ) 5 ) A ) 1 1F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 4 5 i i 4, , 1F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 45 c) 5F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 45 d) 1) 1 1F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 45 d) 3) A) 4OTHER UTHORITIES8A harles A lan Wright rthur R. i l l e r , e t a l , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e a nd

Procedure 036 3d e d . 2012) 5

v13-53846-swr Doc 5300 Filed 06/13/14 Entered 06/13/14 08:40:24 Page 9 of 22


PRELIMINARYSTATEMENTSyncora f i l e d an O b j e c t i o n t o t h e D e b t o r s Plan o f Adjustment o n May 2 , 2014. The

O b j e c t i o n r a i s e d a h o s t of r o u n d s , e . g . , t h a t t h e P l a n f a i l s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of r e d i t o r s t e s tbecause t h e r e c o v e r y i s n o t g r e a t enough, h a t i t f a i l s t h e u n f a i r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t e s t b e c a u s e o fa l l e g e d d i s p a r i t i e s o f r e a t m e n t between c r e d i t o r s of q u a l p r i o r i t y , t h a t i t f a i l s t h e f a i r ande q u i t a b l e t e s t b e c a u s e t h e a s s e t s o f h e D e t r o i t I n s t i t u t e of r t s ( DIA ) r e b e i n g p r e s e r v e dr a t h e r t h a n m o n e t i z e d , and t h a t i t f a i l s t h e f e a s i b i l i t y t e s t , b e c a u s e Syncora s a y s t h e Debtor m a yn o t b e a b l e t o fund t s r e i n v e s t m e n t p l a n .

Now yncora has s e r v e d subpoenas o n t h e Foundations2 t h a t have a g r e e d t o fundp e n s i o n s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e P l a n , s e e k i n g d e p o s i t i o n s and t h e p r o d u c t i o n of documentsr e l a t i n g t o t h e F o u n d a t i o n s d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e DIA, m o n g o t h e r b r o a d , g e n e r a l t o p i c s . N e i t h e rt h e d e p o s i t i o n t o p i c s nor t h e s u b j e c t s o f h e do c umen t e q u e s t s have any c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e b a s e sf o r S y n c o r a s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e P l a n . I t a p p e a r s S y n c o r a s subpoenas a r e n o t h i n g b u t a c y n i c a ll a s h i n g o u t a t e n t i t i e s t h a t have s o m e r o l e i n t h e P l a n , n o r d e r t o annoy, p p r e s s o r h a r a s s thema s p a r t of an o v e r l y a g g r e s s i v e a t t e m p t t o d i s r u p t t h e o r d e r l y r e s o l u t i o n of h i s m a t t e r . A t b e s t ,t h e subpoenas r e a c l a s s i c f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n t o which s e v e r a l grounds o r q u a s h i n g thems q u a r e l y a p p l y . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Foundations r e q u e s t t h a t t h e Court quash t h e Subpoenas a ndo r d e r Syncora t o p ay t h e F o u n d a t i o n s a t t o r n e y s f e e s i n c u rr e d i n h a v i n g t o b r i n g t h i s m o t i o n .

Syncora C a p i t a l Assurance, n c . and Syncora G u a r a n t e e , n c .2 Foundations c o n s i s t of C o m m u n i t y Foundation f o r S o u t h e a s t Michigan, William DavidsonFoundation, The Fred A . and Barbara M. rb Family F o u n d a t i o n , Max M. nd M a r j o r i e S . F i s h e rF o u n d a t i o n , Ford F o u n d a t i o n , Hudson- W e b b e r F o u n d a t i o n , The Kresge F o u n d a t i o n , W . K .Kellogg F o u n d a t i o n , John S. and J ames L. Knight F o u n d a t i o n , M cG r e g o r F un d, h a r l e s S t e w a r tM o t t Foundation and A . aul and C a r o l C . Schaap F o u n d a t i o n .



STATEMENTOFMATERIALFACTSOn May 2 , 2014, Syncora i l e d a 69- p a g e (90- p a r ag r a p h ) O b j e c t i o n ( t h e O b j e c t i o n )

(Docket No. 679) o t h e D e b t o r ' s F o u r t h Amended P l a n f o r t h e Adjustment o f Debts o f h e C i t yof e t r o i t (Docket No. 4392) t h e P l a n ) . Syncora o b j e c t s t h a t t h e P l a n f a i l s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t sof r e d i t o r s t e s t because t h e r e c o v e r y i t o f f e r s t o t h e l e a s t f a v o r e d c l a s s e s i s l e s s t h a n t h e y wouldr e a l i z e i f t h e c a s e were d i s m i s s e d . ( S y n c o r a ' s O b j e c t i o n , Docket No. 4679, . 1 ) . Syncorao b j e c t s t h a t t h e P l a n f a i l s t h e u n f a i r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t e s t b e c a u s e i t would r e s u l t i n a l l e g e dd i s p a r i t i e s o f r e a t m e n t between c r e d i t o r s o f q u a l p r i o r i t y . ( I d . , p . 2 ) Syncora a l s o complainst h a t t h e Plan i s n o t f a i r and e q u i t a b l e b e c a u s e i t does n o t m o n e t i z e t h e D e b t o r ' s a r t c o l l e c t i o n ,i . e . t h e a r t owned by h e DIA. ( I d . , p . 2 ) . And Syncora c l a i m s t h e Plan s a l s o n o t f e a s i b l e ,because t s a y s t h e Debtor w i l l n o t be a b l e t o fund t s r e i n v e s t m e n t p l a n . ( I d . , p . 3 ) .

U n r e l a t e d t o any a s p e c t of y n c o r a ' s O b j e c t i o n t o t h e P l a n i s t h e p r e s e n c e andinvolvement o f h e F o u n d a t i o n s . The Foundations a r e each n o t f o r p r o f i t c h a r i t a b l e f o u n d a t i o n s ,whose only involvement w i t h t h i s m a t t e r a r i s e s from t h e i r answer t o a r e q u e s t t h a t t h e y h e l p t h eDebtor s o l v e i t s f i n a n c i a l problems, and t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t agreement t o p r o v i d e f u n d i n g , upon t h eo c c u r r e n c e o f e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s p r e c e d e n t , o r t h e b e n e f i t of e n s i o n e r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h eGeneral Retirement System and t h e P o l i c e and F i r e R e t i r e m e n t System, s s e t f o r t h i n t h e P l a n .I f approved, h e F o u n d a t i o n s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h o s e of h e S t a t e of Michigan ando t h e r s , would r e s u l t i n t h e t r a n s f e r of h e a s s e t s of h e DIA y t h e D e b t o r , t o be h e l d i n p e r p e t u a lc h a r i t a b l e t r u s t f o r t h e b e n e f i t of h e c i t i z e n s of h e C i t y of e t r o i t and t h e S t a t e of Michigan t h eDIA e t t l e m e n t ) .See t h e Plan a t E x h i b i t I . A . 9 1 .

On une 4, 2014, Syncora s s u e d subpoenas t o each of h e F o u n d a t i o n s , a s amended o nJune 5, 2014 c o l l e c t i v e l y , t h e Subpoenas ), s e e k i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f h e F o u n d a t i o n s 'r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s under F e d e r a l Rule o f i v i l Procedure 3 0 ( b ) ( 6 )(Docket Nos. 5 2 2 4 and 5241),

2



b e g i n n i n g on June 23, 014, nd c o n t i n u i n g t h r o u g h June 27, 014, o d i s c u s s (a) h en e g o t i a t i o n s between each of h e F o u n d a t i o n s , h e Debtor and any o t h e r p a r t i e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h eDIA e t t l e m e n t ;(b) h e terms of h e DIA e t t l e m e n t ; (c) ach F o u n d a t i o n s c o n t r i b u t io n t o t h eDIA e t t l e m e n t ; (d) ach F o u n d a t i o n s involvement w i t h t h e DIA; e) a c h F o u n d a t i o n s r e a s o n sf o r e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e DIA e t t l e m e n t ; f ) h e purpose o r m i s s i o n of a c h F o u n d a t i o n ; (g) achF o u n d a t i o n s p r i o r d o n a t i o n s o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g d o n a t i o n s o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e a r t s ;and, h ) h e importance and v a l u e of h e DIA nd t s a r t c o l l e c t i o n . (Subpoenas t Schedule A).

Th e Subpoenas a l s o r e q u e s t t h a t each Foundation produce a) l l documents andcommunications r e l a t i n g t o t h e DIA e t t l e m e n t ;(b) l l documents and communications r e l a t i n gt o t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e DIA e t t l e m e n t ; (c) l l documents and communicationsr e l a t i n g t o t h e t r a n s f e r of h e a s s e t s of h e DIA u r s u a n t t o t h e DIA e t t l e m e n t ;(d) l l documentsand communications d e s c r i b i n g t h e r e a s o n s f o r e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e DIA e t t l e m e n t ; (e) ocumentss u f f i c i e n t t o s h o w h e c a u s e s o r c h a r i t i e s each Foundation has p r e v i o u s l y s u p p o r t e d o r p r o v i d e dm oney o from J a n u a r y 1 , 1990 o p r e s e n t ; f ) each F o u n d a t i o n s m i s s i o n s t a t e m e n t ;(g) ocuments u f f i c i e n t t o s h o w e a c h F o u n d a t i o n s c u r r e n t p r o c e s s f o r e v a l u a t i n g p o t e n t i a lp a r t n e r s o r c a u s e s ; and, h ) l l communications between each Foundation and t h e DIA romJ a n u a r y 1 , 2001 t o t h e p r e s e n t (Subpoenas a t Schedule B ) . 3

Given t h e t o p i c s f o c u s on t h e DIA, h e p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t of y n c o r a s O b j e c t i o n t o whicht h e i n q u i r i e s presumably a p p l i e s m u st be h e DIA e t t l e m e n t , by which h e DIA s s s e t s a r e t obe t r a n s f e r r e d t o a n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n m o n e t i z e d . But no e x p l a n a t i o n h a s beeno f f e r e d i n o r i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e Subpoenas s t o h o w t h e s e i n q u i r i e s i n t o t h e F o u n d a t i o n s

Docket No. 5241 m o d i f i e d t h e scope of h e document e q u e s t s t o t h o s e from Ma r c h 1 5 , 2013 oJune 5, 2014, n l e s s o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i e d .

3



d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e DIA, much e s s t h e more g e n e r a l t o p i c s s e t f o r t h i n t h e subpoenas, havea n y t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e n a t u r e of y n c o r a ' s O b j e c t i o n .

ARGUMENTI . SYNCORA SSUBPOENASASTOTHEFOUNDATIONSSHOULDBE

QUASHED FORMULTIPLEREASONS.A. Governing StandardsRule 45 of h e F e d e r a l Rules of i v i l Procedure governs motions o quash s u b p o e n a s .

C o u r t s must quash a s ubpoena h a t :( i ) f a i l s t o a l l o w a e a s o n a b l e time t o comply;

i i i ) r e q u i r e s d i s c l o s u r e of r i v i l e g e d o r o t h e r p r o t e c t e d m a t t e r , i f n oe x c e p t i o n o r w a i v e r a p p l i e s ; o r

( i v ) s u b j e c t s a e r s o n t o undue b u r d e n .F e d e r a l Rule of i v i l Procedure 5 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( A ) .

I n r e v i e w i n g a motion o q u a s h , t h e c o u r t m a y o n s i d e r whether i ) t h e subpoena w a si s s u e d p r i m a r i l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of a r a s s m e n t , i i ) t h e r e a r e o t h e r v i a b l e means o o b t a i n t h esame v i d e n c e , and i i i ) t o what x t e n t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n sought s r e l e v a n t , n o n p r i v i l e g e d , a ndc r u c i a l t o t h e moving a r t y ' s c a s e . Bogosian . Woloohojian R e a l t y C o r p . , 323 F.3d 55,66 1 s tC i r . 2 0 0 3 ) c i t i n g c a s e s ) . A ubpoena s o v e r b r o a d i f t does n o t l i m i t t h e documents e q u e s t e dt o s u b j e c t m a t t e r r e l e v a n t t o t h e c l a i m s o r d e f e n s e s . I n n o v a t i v e T h e r a p i e s , I n c . v . Meents, CaseNo. 012-cv-03309, 014 WL 58651, 17 D. Md., 014); n r e Subpoena Duces Tecum t o AOL,L . L . C . , 550 F.Supp.2d 606,612 E.D. Va. 0 0 8 ) .

I n t h e c o n t e x t of i s c o v e r y , Rule 45 d o p t s t h e s t a n d a r d s c o d i f i e d i n Rule 26 whicha l l o w s f o r t h e d i s c o v e r y of ny m a t t e r ' n o t p r i v i l e g e d , t h a t i s r e l e v a n t t o t h e c l a i m o r d e f e n s e of

4



any p a r t y ' when t h e d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t ' a p p e a r s r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e d t o l e a d t o t h e d i s c o v e r y ofa d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e . ' Schaaf . S m i t h K l i n e Beecham C o r p . , 233 F.R.D. 451, 53 E.D.N.C.2005). N e v e r t h e l e s s , simply b e c a u s e i n f o r m a t i o n i s d i s c o v e r a b l e under Rule 26 does n o t meant h a t d i s c o v e r y must be h a d . I d . ( c i t i n g N i c h o l a s v . Wyndham I n t l , I n c . , 373 F.3d 537,543 4 t hC i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . The same l i m i t a t i o n s t o d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s found i n Rule 26 h o u l d be a p p l i e d t o asubpoena s e r v e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 45. S e e , e . g . , HD h e r e r LLC . Natural Molecular T e s t i n gC o r p . , 292 F.R.D. 305, 308 D.S.C. 2013) Rule 45 does n o t l i s t i r r e l e v a n c e o r o v e r b r e a d t h a sr e a s o n s f o r quashing a subpoena. However, h e scope of i s c o v e r y a l l o w e d under a subpoena st h e same a s t h e scope of i s c o v e r y a l l o w e d under Rule 2 6 . ) c i t i n g Cook . H oward, 8 4 Fed.Appx. 805, 812 4 t h C i r . Au g . 24,2012) Although Rule 45(c) e t s f o r t h a d d i t i o n a l grounds onwhich a subpoena a g a i n s t a h i r d p a r t y m a y be q u a s h e d [ , ] . . t h o s e f a c t o r s a r e co- e x t e n s i v e w i t ht h e g e n e r a l r u l e s governing l l d i s c o v e r y t h a t a r e s e t f o r t h i n Rule 2 6 . ) ) .

Rule 2 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t may, o r g ood c a u s e , i s s u e an o r d e r t op r o t e c t a p a r t y o r p e r s o n from annoya nce, embarras sment, p p r e s s i o n , o r undue burden o rexpense by, amo n g o t h e r t h i n g s , b a r r i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n of r o t h e r d i s c o v e r y from t h a ti n d i v i d u a l . Serrano . C i n t a s C o r p . , 699 F.3d 884,901 6 t h C i r . 2 0 1 2 ) . Because d i s c o v e r y h a sl i m i t s and . . . t h e s e l i m i t s gr ow more o r m i d a b l e a s t h e showing of need d e c r e a s e s , . . even v e r ys l i g h t i n c o n v e n i e n c e m a y be u n r e a s o n a b l e i f t h e r e i s no o c c a s i o n f o r t h e i n q u i r y and t cannotb e n e f i t t h e p a r t y making t . I d . ( q u o t i n g A h a r l e s Alan Wright r t h u r R . i l l e r , e t a l ,F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and Procedure 2036 3d e d . 2 0 1 2 ) ) .

I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h e p r o p o n e n t of h e d i s c o v e r y must make a t h r e s h o l d showing ofr e l e v a n c e . . . b e f o r e p a r t i e s a r e r e q u i r e d t o open wide t h e doors of i s c o v e r y , i n o r d e r t o l i m i t f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n s i n d i s c o v e r y . Hofer . M a c k T r u c k s , I n c . , 981 F . 2 d 377,380 8 t h C i r .

5



1 9 9 2 ) . D i s t r i c t C o u r t s need n o t condone t h e u s e of i s c o v e r y t o engaging f i s h i n ge x p e d i t i o n s . ' R i v e r a v . Nibco,364 F . 3 d 1057, 1 0 7 2 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . I n d e e d , even i f a d i s t r i c tc o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t a p a r t y i s s e e k i n g r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , t may, upon a showing of goodc a u s e , e n t e r any p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r t h a t j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s t o p r o t e c t a p a r t y o r p e r s o n fromannoyance, embarrassment, p p r e s s i o n , o r undue burden o r expense . . . F e d e r a l Rule of i v i lProcedure 2 6 ( c ) . See a l s o I ' m n a e d a f t , L t d . v . The I n t e l l i g e n c e O f f i c e System, Case N o . 1 : 2 0 0 8 -cv-01596,2009 W 537975,6 D. o l o . , 2009) t h i r d - p a r t y subpoenas h a t a r e a e a r c h f o rammunition t o u s e i n a p a r t i c u l a r war s h o u l d be quashed; ammo e c o n ' m i s s i o n s , l i k e f i s h i n ge x p e d i t i o n s , a r e r a r e l y a p p r o p r i a t e and u n i f o r m l y d i s c o u r a g e d . )

As o u r t s have r e c o g n i z e d , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 2 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) h a t t h e m a t e r i a l sought i nd i s c o v e r y be r e l e v a n t ' s h o u l d be f i r m l y a p p l i e d , and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s s h o u l d n o t n e g l e c t t h e i rpower t o r e s t r i c t d i s c o v e r y [ t o p r o t e c t ] a p a r t y o r p e r s o n from annoyance, embarrassment, o r ]o p p r e s s i o n . . R e g a n -Touchy . Walgreen Co.,526 F.3d 641, 648-49(10th C i r . 2008), q u o t i n gHerbert . Lan d o, 441 U.S. 153, 1 7 7 1 9 7 9 ) ) .

I n t h e c o n t e x t of subpoenas t o t h i r d - p a r t i e s , t h e p r o t e c t i o n s a c o u r t s h o u l d p r o v i d e a r eeven g r e a t e r . I n b a l a n c i n g t h e need f o r d i s c o v e r y a g a i ns t t h e burdens imposed by t h e d i s c o v e r yr e q u e s t e d , c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t a c o u r t m a y c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t t h a t d i s c o v e r y i s b e i n g sought froma h i r d - p a r t y , which weighs a g a i n s t p e r m i t t i n g d i s c o v e r y . S e e , e . g . Medi cal Components, n c . v .C l a s s i c a l M e d i c a l , I n c . , 210 F.R.D. 175, 180 n . 9 M .D.N .C . 2002); Echostar Communications .The N e w s C o r p . , L t d . , 180 F.R.D. 391, 394(D. Colo. 1 9 9 8 ) .

B. A p p l i c a t i o nS y n c o r a ' s Subpoenas aimed a t t h e F o u n d a t i o n s a r e p r o p e r l y quashed f o r any number of

r e a s o n s . They a r e n o t r e m o t e l y aimed a t d i s c o v e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t would b e a r on t h e n a t u r e

6



of h e O b j e c t i o n t o t h e P l a n . They a r e o v e r b r o a d and would impose an undue b u r d e n . They a l s oseek d i s c l o s u r e of r i v i l e g e d o r o t h e r p r o t e c t e d m a t t e r .

1 . The Subpoenas do not seek d i s c o v e r y of e l e v a n t information.The Subpoenas do n o t even g e t o u t of h e g a t e a s a p r o p e r r e q u e s t b e c a u s e t h e y s e e k

i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s s i m p l y n o t r e l e v a n t t o S y n c o r a ' s O b j e c t i o n t o t h e P l a n .The F o u n d a t i o n s o n l y became n v o l v e d i n t h i s m a t t e r a s a e s u l t of h e i r r e s p o n d i n g t o a

r e q u e s t t h a t t h e y a s s i s t t h e C i t y of e t r o i t i n r e s o l v i n g i t s f i n a n c i a l i l l s T h e i r r o l e i n t h i s m a t t e r i sl i m i t e d t o p r o v i d i n g f u n d i n g , upon h e o c c u r r e n c e of e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s p r e c e d e n t , f o r t h e b e n e f i tof e n s i o n e r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e G e n e r a l R e t i r e m e n t System and t h e P o l i c e and F i r e R e t i r e m e n tSystem, s s e t f o r t h i n t h e P l a n . That u n d i n g would r e s u l t i n t h e t r a n s f e r of h e a s s e t s of h eDIA o be h e l d i n p e r p e t u a l c h a r i t a b l e t r u s t f o r t h e b e n e f i t of h e c i t i z e n s of h e C i t y of e t r o i tand S t a t e of Michigan. Syncora c r i t i c i z e s t h i s a s p e c t of h e P l a n , and b e l i e v e s t h e DIA's s s e t ss h o u l d be m o n e t i z e d . But whatever h e m e r i t s of h a t c r i t i c i s m , t h e Subpoenas aimed a t t h eFoundations have n o t h i n g t o do w i t h i t

The d e p o s i t i o n t o p i c s , and t h e documents h a t a r e t h e s u b j e c t of h e r e q u e s t s t o p r o d u c e ,s e e k such t h i n g s a s t h e terms of h e DIA e t t l e m e n t , t h e v a r i o u s F o u n d a t i o n s ' involvement w i t ht h e DIA , nd t h e reasons o r e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e DIA e t t l e m e n t . The o p i c s a l s o i n c l u d e suchf a r - r a n g i n g f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n s a s p r i o r d o n a t i o n s o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g d o n a t i o n s o r

c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e a r t . Syncora even i s t s a s a d e p o s i t i o n t o p i c The m p o r t a n c e and v a l u e oft h e D e t r o i t I n s t i t u t e of r t s and C o l l e c t i o n .

No n f o r m a t i o n t h a t Syncora might o b t a i n t h r o u g h d i s c o v e r y from t h e F o u n d a t i o n st h r o u g h d e p o s i t i o n s and r e s p o n s e s t o document e q u e s t s would have any b e a r i n g whatsoever ont h e m e r i t s ( o r l a c k t h e r e o f ) of y n c o r a ' s O b j e c t i o n t o t h e P l a n . The o l e b a s i s f o r S y n c o r a ' s



o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e DI e t t l e m e n t s e t f o r t h i n i t s O b j e c t i o n t o t h e P l a n stems from S y n c o r a ' so p i n i o n t h a t t h e v a l u e t h e Debtor w i l l r e c e i v e from t h e DI e t t l e m e n t i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s t h a nt h e r e a s o n a b l y e q u i v a l e n t valueand t h a t t h e community v a l u e of l l o w i n g t h e DIA's a s s e t s n o tt o be monetized e v i d e n t l y s h o u l d be d i s r e g a r d e d . Such q u e s t i o n s about v a l u a t i o n a r e e n t i r e l yu n r e l a t e d t o t h e funding t o be p r o v i d e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t of h e p e n s i o n e r s . C l e a r ly , t h e purpose oft h e s c h e d u l i n g of h e d e p o s i t i o n s of h e F o u n d a t i o n s ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and document p r o d u c t i o nr e q u e s t s i s t o a t t e m p t t o i n t i m i d a t e t h e Foundations i n t o d r o p p i n g t h e i r s u p p o r t f o r t h e D IAS e t t l e m e n t .

I n s h o r t , S y n c o r a ' s Subpoenas a r e n o t m e r e l y a i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n ; t h e y a r e a f i s h i n ge x p e d i t i o n i n a pond w i t h no f i s h . Thus, h e y a r e b e s t u n d e r s t o o d a s n o t merely a good- f a i t hd i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t t h a t c o u l d p o s s i b l y annoy o r o p p r e s s t h e t h i r d - p a r t i e s t o whom h e Subpoenasa r e aimed, u t a s designed t o annoy or oppress t h e F o u n d a t i o n s , b y h a r a s s i n g th e m f o r no goodr e a s o n a t a l l R e g a r d l e s s , and whatever S y n c o r a ' s m o t i v e , t h e Subpoenas s h o u l d be quashed i nt h e i r e n t i r e t y .

C o u r t s have r e p e a t e d l y quashed subpoenas aimed a t d i s c o v e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n b a s e d onn o t h i n g more t h a n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t might d i s c o v e r o r f i s h out something t h a tc o u l d be of s e . See E.E.O.C. S . H a u l e r s , LLC, No. 11-00564N, 012 W 768064, t *3-4(S.D.Ala. May 7 , 2012) g r a n t i n g motions t o quash b e c a u s e t h e mere p o s s i b i l i t y t h a td e f e n d a n t might d i s c o v e r e v i d e n c e o r f i s h out something t h a t might be a d m i s s i b l e a simpeachment e v i d e n c e d i d n o t u s t i f y t h e b r o a d r e q u e s t s ) ; E.E.O.C. O r i g i n a l HoneybakedHam o. of e o r g i a , I n c . , No. 11cv-02560MSKMEH, 012 W 34312, t *3 D . Colo. Mar.1 9 , 2012) D e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t such d a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n m a y be r e l e v a n t t o an a f t e r -a c q u i r e d e v i d e n c e d e f e n s e o r m a y d e m o n s t r a t e an a l t e r n a t i v e s o u r c e of m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s

8



i n c h e s over t h e l i n e i n t o a f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n ' b a r r e d by t h e a p p l i c a b l e r u l e s . ) ; L i l e s v S t u a r tWeitzman, LLC,No. 09-61448CIV, 2010 W 839229, t *3 S.D. l a . May , 2010) g r a n t i n gm o t i o n f o r p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r and e x p l a i n i n g t h a t Defendant . h a s c i t e d n o a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r th i s argument t h a t a p l a i n t i f f s e m p l o y m e n t r e c o r d s f r o m h i s former employer a r e r e l e v a n t o r a r el i k e l y t o l e a d t o a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e ) o d e m o n s t r a t e poor performance w h i l e employed by t h ed e f e n d a n t . Moreover, o u r t s c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i s s u e have h e l d t o t h e c o n t r a ry . ) ; E . E . O. . JackMarshall Foods, n c . , No. 0 9 - 0 1 6 0 W S M , 010 W 5635, t *6 S.D. A l a . J a n . 4 , 2010)( a f f i r m i n g m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g m o t i o n t o quash o v e r b r o a d subpoenas t o formere m p l o y e r s ) ; Sanders D a l c r a f t , LLC,No. 3-09CV-0307P,2009 W 392602, t *2 N.D.Tex. May 8 , 2009) Courts g e n e r a l l y a g r e e t h a t t h e a f t e r- a c q u i r e d e v i d e n c e d e f e n s e ' c a n n o t beu s e d t o p u r s u e d i s c o v e r y i n t h e a b s e n c e o f o m e b a s i s f o r b e l i e v i n g t h a t a f t e r- a c q u i r e d e v i d e n c eo f wr o n g- d o i n g w i l l be r e v e a l e d . ' ) c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; P r e m e r C o r e s t q f f e r v s . , L . P . , 232F.R.D. 692,693 M.D. l a . 2 0 0 5 ) Though t h e a f t e r- a c q u i r e d e v i d e n c e d o c t r i n e p r o v i d e semployers a m e c h a n i s m t o l i m i t an e m p l o y e e ' s remedies b a s e d o n e v i d e n c e found d u r i n gd i s c o v e r y , t s h o u l d n o t be u s e d a s an i n d e p e n d e n t b a s i s t o i n i t i a t e d i s c o v e r y . ) .

I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s a l l a p p l y w i t h e q u a l i f n o t g r e a t e r f o r c e b e c a u s e , a sn o t e d , t h i s i s n o t mere ly a f i s h i n g e x p e d i t i o n , t i s an i n t e n t i o n a l e f f o r t t o annoy o r h a r a s s t h eFoundations w i t h n o hope o f n e a r t h i n g r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e O b j e c t i o n .A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e Subpoenas s h o u l d be q u a s h e d .

2. T h e S ubp o e n a s are overb roa d a n d would i m p o s e an u n d u e burden.Apart f r o m t h e absence o f any r e l e v a n c e , t h e subpoenas a r e p r o p e r l y quashed a s

o v e r b r o a d and a s imposing an undue b u r d e n . A s o n e c o u r t h a s a p t l y r e c o g n i z e d , o b v i o u s l y , i fs o u g h t - a f t e r doc um en t s a r e n o t r e l e v a n t n o r c a l c u l a t e d t o l e a d t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f d m i s s i b l e



e v i d e n c e , t h e n any burden w h a t s o e v e r imposed . . would be by d e f i n i t i o n ' u n d u e . ' Comp aqComputer Corp. Packard e l l E l e c . , I n c . , 163 F.R.D. 329, 335-36 N . D . a l . 1 9 9 5 ) . That st h e c a s e h e r e .

Even i f t h e t o p i c s of h e Subpoenas had s o m e m a r g i n a l r e l e v a n c e t o S y n c o r a ' s O b j e c t i o n ,which t h e y d o n o t , t h e burden on t h e Foundations would w a r r a n t t h a t t h e subpoenas be quashed.T h e t o p i c s i n c l u d e such f a r - r a n g i n g i t e m s a s T h e purpose o r m i s s i o n of Your o u n d a t i o n , andYo u r p r i o r d o n a t i o n s o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g d o n a t i o n s o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e a r t s . mongo t h e r problems w i t h such t o p i c s , t h e y a r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y b r o a d , t o p u t t m i l d l y . T h eF o u n d a t i o n s s h o u l d n o t be r e q u i r e d t o g a t h e r up l l i n f o r m a t i o n r e s p o n s i v e t o such o v e r b r o a dt o p i c s , o r be h e l d t o answer q u e s t i o n s on them, a r t i c u l a r l y g i v e n t h e a b s e n c e of any showing ofn e e d .

A d d i t i o n a l l y , m u c h of h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u g h t , a l b e i t i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e O b j e c t i o n , s r e a d i l ya v a i l a b l e t o Syncora, s w e l l a s t o t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e . T h e m i s s i o n s t a t e m e n t f o r each of h eFoundations i s c o n t a i n e d on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e w e b i t e s I n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o p r i o r g r a n t s m a d eb y t h e Foundations i s a v a i l a b l e v i a G u i d e S t a r ( w w w . g u i d e s t a r . o r g ) , which i n c l u d e s d a t a f o r w e l lover 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 o r g a n i z a t i o n s b y h e I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e a s n o t- f o r - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

S y n c o r a ' s subpoenas a r e t h e v e r y d e f i n i t i o n of v e r b r o a d , and would be a p p r o p r i a t e l yquashed f o r t h a t r e a s o n a l o n e even i f t h e y d i d s e e k r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n .

3. T h e S ubpoenas r e q u i r e d i s c l o s u r e of r i v i l e g e d or other p r o t e c t e dm a t t e r .

h i r d r e a s o n t h e Subpoenas s h o u l d be quashed i s t h a t t h e y would r e q u i r e d i s c l o s u r e ofp r i v i l e g e d o r o t h e r p r o t e c t e d m a t e r i a l . D i s c u s s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e DI e t t l e m e n t were h e l d i nc o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e C o u r t ' s m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s , which d e e m e d l l n e g o t i a t i o n s t o be p r i v i l e g e d ,and r e q u i r e d t h a t e v e r y t h i n g p e r t a i n i n g t o s am e be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l (Docket No. 2 2 ) . Even

10



a b s e n t t h i s f a c t , g i v e n t h e complete a b s e n c e o f e l e v a n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e a r e a s o f n q u i r y ,S y n c o r a s a t t e m p t t o h a r a s s t h e F o u n d a t i o n s i n t o d i s c l o s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o f h i s t y p e s h o u l d ber e j e c t e d .

I I . THECOURTSHOULD W RDTHEFOUNDATIONS ATTORNEYSFEESINCURREDINCONNECTIONWITHTHISMOTION

F e d e r a l Rule o f i v i l Procedure 45 n c l u d e s a s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n aimed a t Protecting aP ers on Subject t o a S u b p o e n a ; E n f o rc e m e n t. S u b s e c t i o n (d) t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t a sf o l l o w s :

(1) Avoiding U n d u e B u r d e n o r Expens e; a n c t i o n s . A a r t y o ra t t o r n e y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i s s u i n g and s e r v i n g a subpoena mus t a k er e a s o n a b l e s t e p s t o a v o i d imposing u n du e burden o r expense o n ap e r s o n s u b j e c t t o t h e subpoena. The c o u r t f o r t h e d i s t r i c t wherecompliance s r e q u i r e d mus t n f o r c e t h i s duty and impose ana p p r o p r i a t e s a n c t i o n- - w h i c h m a y n c l u d e l o s t e a r n i n g s an dr e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y s f e e s- - o n a p a r t y o r a t t o r n e y w h o a i l s t oc o m p l y.

Here, n s t u n n i n g c o n t r a s t t o t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o t a k e r e a s o n a b l e s t e p s t o a v o i d imposingundue burden o r e x p e n s e , Syncora a p p e a r s t o have s s u e d t s Subpoenas o r t h e v e r y purpose o fimposing undue burden o r expense o n t h e F o u n d a t i o n s . Because t h e t o p i c s f o r d e p o s i t i o n andd o c u m e n t e q u e s t s have n o c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e grounds o r S y n c o r a s O b j e c t i o n t o t h e P l a n , and,t h e r e f o r e , t h e Subpoenas s e e k i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t t o t s O b j e c t i o n , t s eems t h eSubpoenas were i s s u e d s o l e l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f annoying o r h a r a s s i n g t h e F o u n d a t i o n s .C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s Court s h o u l d award t h e F o u n d a t i o n s t h e i r a t t o r n e y s f e e s i n c u r r e d i n b r i n g i n gt h i s m o t i o n . See a l s o F e d e r a l Rule o f i v i l P r o c e d u r e 3 7 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) r e q u i r i n g a o u r t t o awarda t t o r n e y s f e e s u p o n t h e g r a n t o f a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r a b s e n t c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s ) .

1 1



CONCLUSIONFor t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , t h e Foundations r e q u e s t t h a t t h i s Court quash t h e

Subpoenas s e r v e d by Syncora o n June 4, 014, a n d award t h e Foundations a t t o r n e y s f e e si n c u r r e d i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e i s s u a n c e of h o s e Subpoenas. The Foundations f u r t h e r r e q u e s t a n yand l l o t h e r r e l i e f a p p r o p r i a t e under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s.

PLUNKETTCOONEY/ s / Douglas C . e r n s t e i nA t t o r n e y s f o r CFSM h e DavidsonFoundation, h e Erb Foundation, h e F i s h e rFoundation, Ford Foundation, Hudson-WebberFoundation, h e Kellogg Foundation,McGregor Fu n d , h e Mott Foundation a n d t h eSchaap Foundation38505 W o o d w a r d Ave., t e . 2000Bloomfield H i l l s , Michigan 48304248) [email protected] ndOf ounsel

WINSTON TRAWNLLPHarvey KurzweilNew ork S t a t e Bar No. 1251610D e s i r e e M. i poNew ork S t a t e Bar No. 589552A t t o r n e y s f o r The Kresge Foundation200 Park A v e n u eNew ork,New ork 10166-4193 212) 94-6700HKurz weil@winsto n.co mD M R i p o w i n s t o n . c o m

12



Date: June 13, 2014Open.18341.41654.14156631-2

1 3

a ndBILZIN SUMBERG B EN RICEXELRODLLP

Rafael R . i b e i r oThe F l o r i d a Bar No. 896241Michael N. r e i t z e rThe F l o r i d a Bar No. 705561A t t o r n e y s f o r t h e Knight Foundation1450 B r i c k e l l Av enu e , u i t e 2300Miami, l o r i d a 33131- 345 6 305) 50-7312 305) 50-2384r r i b e i r o a , b i l z i n . c o mm k r e i t z e r a l b i l z i n . c o m



13-53846-swr Doc 5300-1 Filed 06/13/14 Entered 06/13/14 08:40:24 Page 1 of 3

6.13.14 foundations motion to quash syncora subpoena

Documents