3non-party in contempt for failure to obey the subpoena without adequate excuse. Of course, non- parties cannot be forced to produce documents that do not exist, but the court need not rely on anon-party’s assertion that such documents do not exist.
See Zervos v. S.S. Sam Houston
, 79F.R.D. 593, 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (ordering party to produce documents who claimed that he didnot possess such documents);
Golden Trade S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co
., 143 F.R.D. 514, 525 n.7(S.D.N.Y. 1992) (granting motion to compel, in part, when party “ma[d]e an adequate showingto overcome this assertion” that the non-moving party did not have documents in its possession).
A. The Tigris Third Parties and UANIAs recent news articles have detailed (attached as exhibits), the Tigris Third Parties areindividuals or entities that are deeply entwined with Defendants in this case. They appear to beamong the primary benefactors of Defendants and, therefore, are enabling Defendants’defamation campaign against Plaintiff, as well as this litigation.
In addition, reports indicatethat Kaplan’s business interests may also be aligned with Defendants’ stated mission of “endingthe economic and financial support of the Iranian regime by corporations, firms, entities andindividuals” (
Declaration of Serine Consolino Exhibit 1 (“Ex. 1”)) such that he stands to profit from UANI’s “name and shame” campaigns.
Ex. 2. A recent news article aboutKaplan pointed out that the companies he owns, for example, Tigris Financial Group (whose
UANI reported that it raised only $1,789,548 in contributions in 2012 for their entireoperations, based on fund-raising expenses of only $26,131. Ex. 15 at 1. Plaintiffs haveasked in discovery for information as to who is funding the defamation campaign andresulting litigation against them. Defendants have refused to provide that information.
Case 1:13-cv-05032-ER-KNF Document 229 Filed 08/13/14 Page 3 of 10