Tobacco Documents Online

PAUt hwATNx.S uiOC • 19731 OANq L>TNAM 0096 • KI7Yl _ .' <.~`_nFF'^-s VEnDO TOw[O, SuITC SlCO CMIG.6O• ILLINO/S 60®C6 P4ORC 1312) 676•7T0C. FAf'003ro767 NONG KONG OFFICF 6uITE 22CGA. Y2n0 eLOOa NC O C11CCN'9 MOAD C6N,NYV wONO AONO !+ONC , 6s2•252L•7600. PAX 2322•F0C0 LATHAM & WATKINS AT70RNEYa AT LAW s3Re ArmIRO, sUrte 1000 ee® 11iIR0 AVENUE NEW YORK• NEVI YORK 10022-a802 7ELEPNON6 <212) DOB•i200 FAX f212) 751•®8®a tl .11111 .rONfAN6Cl COURT '_GN00N EC2R 7NJ ENGLANO PMCNC + 4/•171-]7< A!A/, FA3 02s AY00 O- ~~F~L~ClEl4E e53 wCST FIRN STRCET. 5U1TC AO00 •]5 ANOCKS. CALIRORNIa DOC71•20CT /•nONC 42141 1®5•123e, FAX 601•O]OJ MOS001/ OFiICC uLlilA OA6nfNA. f. 4TN Ftooe MOCeDW ICaO>e. Auu31s ,•044 765•/27e, FA2 705•1236 NtW JCk3L;.tEE1LL ONC NCWARR CCNTCR. IOTN fLOOR MEwG®n, NEW J(MaF.T G71GI•317< I•.Inue ur01 Os0•ISS.. .AZ ssu•,sM6 September 15,1998 VIA TELECOPY AP1D REGULAR MAIL Aaron H. Marks, Esq. Kasowit2, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-6022 Dear Mr. Marks: Re: Brooke Groun Ltd. and Liceett Group Inc. qvyyi e o •-T. OFe . 650 TOwN CCNTC°< ORIVC, SUITE 2000 CCSTA MESA. CALIIOAN)A 02YSON0:5 PHONE tllal i®C•Raa. FAS 763•f2C0 D O~Irr f01'B•-STREET, SUITE f100 a.N nmr.0. O./,Ireouu e21a•G~DT PHONE tl101 356.1:2A, 1wk 090•TA/• f.u FwAN-,. en•ee 505 MONYOOMfOT 9FNSLT. 3VITC IBOO - N FR.tNCI'aCO. CALIFORNIA P<Ill•25<2 PNOI/C 1413) 091•0600. FAX 3pS•0005 ,e, r `•A"r~`., n • 75 WILLOW ROAD n MEKLO PARK. CALIFORNIA 9402y-l650 PHONE t950, ]26•i600. FAJt 46!•2600 -_en~,.. 4~ IfE CO CECIL STREET. !25•06/D3,0•I TNE EAONANGE. 6/MOAPORE OiG705 PHONE + 95•5i6•IIOI, FAk 5i0•/l!1 Te IN/IN/ ww,.SAMA• 6-7•16. AKA6AW MNIATO•xY 1OkT0 IO7•OD58. ~e~.N PHONE +613-6420•3070• F.k i<CO•i0,1 WA2n,xQTO~L-O/FU;E 1C01 PCNMSYLVANIA 4VC.• N.Yf., SUITE 1200 wASNINGTGN. p.<. zDODe.2eo6 PHONE 12021 O3J•2260• FAX 60T•2201 I was both disappointed and surprised by your letter of September 8, 1998. I had hoped that the reference to Sag R~ ealtv in Mr. Arkin's letter of August 11, 1998, indicated an acknowledgment on the part of counsel for Liggett that the procedures set forth in that decision established the appropriate framework for reconciling your request with the other interests implicated by that request. Instead, your September 8 letter is a step backward. It is a repetition of the initial demand for unrestricted access while ignoring the important concerns identified by the Court of Appeals, including that a law firm in receipt of such a request (1) "should not be required to disclose documents which might violate a duty of nondisclosure owed to a third party," (2) may restrict access to "firm documents intended for internal law office review and use, " and (3) is entitled to be compensated, according to its "customary fee schedules," for the costs incurred in connection with the "assemblage and delivery of documents to the client•" In the Matter of Saee Realty Corporation. et al., v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn LLP. 91 N.Y.2d 30, 37, 689 N$2d 879, 883, 666 N.Y.S•2d 985, 988 (1997). Where we disagree is that you continue to insist on unrestricted access to any and , all Liggett-related documents, before any of the materials as to which you do not have a right of , a d 9ME9o9aI 'oN/atI: I iisiEV 11 86 IS 1 '6 Mi) AN SuIEaM V jMivI KoH

n ~ :-ATHNd 3e WA7KINs September 15, 1998 Page 2 unlimited access, under Sage Rcalty, are separated out, and you have not agreed to compensate us, as Saee Realtv provides, for the casts involved. I remain of the view that an agreed protocol based on the principles endorsed by the Court of Appeals in Saee Realtv, as proposed in my letter of August 28, would facilitate your inspection of documents without resort to what that decision describes as a judioial proceeding at which "disputes concerning acccss to thesc and other catcgorics of law firm papers will be resolved in the first instance... through a[Supteme Court] hearing which might necessitate in camera review." Id. However, in the absence of such an agreed protocol, because there are legal interests recognized in Saee Realty to be entitled to protection in this process, it may be necessary to obtain a judicial resolution of the issues raised by your request, directing both of us as to how to proceed and who should bear the costs, under Sage Realty, in responding to your request. very truly yours, Walter P. Loughlin ofLA'i'HAM & WATILINS WPL:ps E d 9ZZbE909D 'ON/Zb: I I'SS/ER: 11 86 ,5I '6 MI) AN SNI?IIVM ~ }'1dH1.Y7 1Y083