EXHIBIT L

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2015 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 652721/2014

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2015

MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN

437 Madison Avenue Direct Dial: 212-551-7717 29th Floor Fax: 212-599-1759 New York, NY 10022 Email: edougherty@mmwr.com Tel: 212-867-9500

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Erin C. Dougherty Admitted in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York

March 16, 2015

Via Certified Mail

Bruce D. Meller Peckar & Abramson, P.C. 41 Madison Avenue, 20th Fl. New York, NY 10010

Re: FCRC Modular, LLC v. Skanska Modular, LLC, No. 652721/2014 (Hon. S. Scarpulla), Subpoena Duces Tecurn Issued to Non-Party Berlin Rosen Ltd.

Dear Mr. Meller:

This firm represents Berlin Rosen Ltd. ("Berlin Rosen") in connection with the subpoena duces tecum dated October 22, 2014 issued by your office on behalf of Skanska Modular LLC and Richard A. Kennedy in connection with the above-referenced matter (the "Subpoena"). Please find enclosed Berlin Rosen's Responses and Objections to Defendants' Subpoena Pursuant to CPLR 3122.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at the above number.

Sincerely yours,

Erin C. Dougherty

Enclosure

MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP

PENNSYLVANIA • NEW YORK • NEW JERSEY • DELAWARE

A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

LOWS A PETRONI. NEW JERSEY RESPONSIBLE PARTNER

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x FCRC MODULAR, LLC and FC MODULAR, LLC (formerly known as FC+Skanska Modular, LLC) : Index No. 652721/2014

• Plaintiffs,

: IAS Part 39 -against- : Justice Saliann Scarpulla

SKANSKA MODULAR LLC and RICHARD A. KENNEDY,

Defendants. x

SKANSKA MODULAR LLC and RICHARD A. : RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS KENNEDY, : TO DEFENDANTS' SUBPOENA

: PURSUANT TO CPLR 3122 Third-Party Plaintiffs,

-against-

FOREST CITY RATNER COMPANIES, LLC, FOREST: CITY ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN DOES 1-10 AND : JANE DOE,

Third-Party Defendants. x

Berlin Rosen Ltd. ("Berlin Rosen"), by and through its undersigned counsel, responds

and objects to the non-party subpoena duces tecum dated October 22, 2014 (the "Subpoena"),

served by defendants/third-party plaintiffs Skanska Modular LLC and Richard A. Kennedy

(together, "Defendants"), as follows:

General Objections

1. Berlin Rosen understands that plaintiffs and third-party defendants have moved to

dismiss Defendants' counterclaims and third-party complaint (the "Dismissal Motion") in the

above-captioned matter. Berlin Rosen objects to responding to the Subpoena before the Court

has decided the Dismissal Motion. As a consequence of the Dismissal Motion, all discovery is

stayed. See CPLR 3214(b). Furthermore, the Dismissal Motion seeks dismissal of the claim in

Defendants' third party complaint that is the basis for Defendants' Subpoena of Berlin Rosen

(i.e., the defamation claim). If the Dismissal Motion is granted, in whole or in part, that may

completely negate or materially alter the need for discovery from Berlin Rosen. Berlin Rosen, a

non-party, should not be required to incur the expense or suffer the burden of responding to the

Subpoena before the Dismissal Motion is adjudicated. Berlin Rosen will produce responsive

documents not covered by these objections, if any, if the Dismissal Motion is denied and

following a reasonable period of time to search for such documents.

2. Berlin Rosen objects to the Subpoena because it is premature. As a non-party,

Berlin Rosen should not have to incur the expense or suffer the burden of searching for, locating

or producing documents prior to Defendants undertaking efforts to obtain those documents from

parties. It is likely that most, if not all, of the documents requested in the Subpoena are in the

possession of the parties. Berlin Rosen also objects to the Subpoena insofar as it seeks

documents more readily obtainable from sources for whom production would be more

convenient, less burdensome or less expensive than to Berlin Rosen.

3. Berlin Rosen objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information or calls for

the production of documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work

product doctrine, the common interest or joint defense privilege, or any other applicable

privilege or immunity from discovery.

4. Berlin Rosen objects to the extent the Subpoena seeks confidential business and

financial information, proprietary or sensitive commercial information, trade secrets, or any other

confidential information. Berlin Rosen will provide such information, if any, only after the entry

of an appropriate confidentiality order.

2

5. Berlin Rosen expressly preserves, to the extent applicable: (a) all objections as to

relevancy, materiality, competency, privilege, confidentiality, authenticity and admissibility; (b)

all objections as to overbreadth and undue burden, or that the documents sought are duplicative,

cumulative, irrelevant and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence; (c) all objections as to vagueness and ambiguity; (d) all rights to object to the use of

any documents produced in response to the Subpoena in any proceeding, including the trial of

this action; (e) all rights to object on any ground to any additional requests or subpoena; and (f)

all rights to revise, correct, supplement or clarify the responses and objections set forth herein.

6. Berlin Rosen objects to the Subpoena insofar as it seeks to impose obligations

greater than those imposed by the CPLR, the Uniform Civil Rules of this Court or applicable

case law. Berlin Rosen disclaims any obligation to provide any documents beyond what may be

required by such rules or case law. Berlin Rosen objects to the definition of the term

"Document" insofar as that definition is more expansive or inconsistent with the CPLR, the

Uniform Civil Rules of this Court, and/or applicable case law.

7. Berlin Rosen objects to the definition of the term "Forest City" because it is used

to refer to numerous different entities, including one or more entities not implicated in

Kennedy's defamation claim. Relatedly, Berlin Rosen objects to the Subpoena's third definition

because it refers to a party's "members, officers, former officers, directors, former directors,

agents, former agents, employees, former employees, partners, former partners, assignees,

successors, parent organizations, affiliates, or subsidiaries, or any of its divisions, branches, or

departments and all other persons or entities acting on its behalf." Berlin Rosen does not know

who Defendants believe satisfy these descriptions nor whether (or the extent to which)

3

Defendants' belief is accurate. Accordingly, any instructions or definitions incorporating these

terms are overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous.

8. By objecting or failing to object to any particular request in the Subpoena, Berlin

Rosen does not admit the existence or nonexistence of any documents. Accordingly, any

response herein that states that documents will be produced should not be deemed to be a

representation that such documents exist. Instead, it is a representation that, subject to and

without waiver of Berlin Rosen's other objections, non-privileged documents, if any, that are

located in a reasonable search and that are responsive to Defendants' document request will be

produced. Berlin Rosen objects to providing documents outside of its direct possession, custody

or control.

9. Berlin Rosen reserves its right, but does not assume the obligation, to supplement

its responses and objections to Defendants' Subpoena during the pendency of the above-

captioned action.

10. Berlin Rosen incorporates by reference each of the foregoing general objections

into the specific objection set forth below.

Specific Objections

Document Request No. 1: All documents concerning the Press Release, including all documents identifying (1) its preparation and contents; (ii) any person or entity which or whom authorized Berlin Rosen to issue the Press Release; (iii) to whom the Press Release was issued; and (iv) all inquiries made to Berlin Rosen or Jeremy Soffin regarding the Press Release and any response(s) made to such inquiries including any person or entity which authorized such response(s).

Berlin Rosen objects to the request because it seeks documents in the possession of

parties to the above-captioned action, or that are available from sources from whom production

would be more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive than to Berlin Rosen. Berlin

Rosen further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents protected by any privileges

4

By: Charles Palella Erin Dougherty

437 Madison Avenue, 29' Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 201-1931

or immunities from production, including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege, the

attorney work product doctrine, and/or the common interest privilege. Berlin Rosen also objects

to this request insofar as it seeks production of confidential documents including, without

limitation, any trade secret information, confidential contacts, sources, information protected by

contract, or other non-public information. Berlin Rosen objects to this request because it is

overbroad and seeks documents that are not relevant to the above-captioned matter, and are not

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Not every document

concerning the Press Release is relevant to, or likely to lead to admissible evidence concerning,

the defamation claim. Subject to and without waiving all of its general and specific objections, if

the Dismissal Motion is denied, and if the requested documents are not able to be produced by

any party during party document discovery, Berlin Rosen will produce responsive documents, if

any, that are not privileged or confidential, following a reasonable time period to search for such

documents.

Dated: New York, New York March 16, 2015

MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP

Attorneys for Non-Party Berlin Rosen Ltd.

5