350 Mount Kemble Avenue CMG Wall Street Plaza P.O. Box 1917 88 Pine Street, 28"" Floor Morristown, New Jersey 07962 . une New York, New York 10005 hone: 973-267-0058 hone: 212-483-0105 fax. 973-267-6442 pualige fax. 212-480-3899 www.cmg.law ELF The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter at Dkt. No. 222. A telepl ADAM M. SMITH, Esa. September 23, 2025 conference to discuss the Subpoena is scheduled for October 2, 202 DIRECT DIAL: (212) 612-4995 3:00 p.m. ET on the Court's conference line. The parties are directed tc EMAIL: [email protected] (855) 244-8681; access code: 2308 226 4654 at the scheduled time. C Via ECF before September 29, 2025, Defendant shall serve a copy of this Orde Hon. Sarah L. Cave, U.S.M.J. non-party DOB and file proof of service. USS. District Court, Southern District of New York The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 222. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse SO ORDERED. September 24, 2025 500 Pearl Street, Room 1670 oO, I New York, New York 10007 lee Inited Statés Magistrate Judge Re: Alan D. Halperin, solely as Trustee of the DRVC Abuse Claims Trust v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, in Liquidation Case No. 1:20-cv-11011-JLR-SLC Dear Magistrate Judge Cave: We write on behalf of the Defendant, Arrowood Indemnity Company, in Liquidation (“Arrowood”) pursuant to § II.C.2. of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases and S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 37.2 to request a discovery conference before the Court in the above- referenced matter (the “DRVC Action”). The subject of the requested discovery conference is a subpoena served by Arrowood on non-party, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York (“DOB”) on August 7, 2025 (the “Subpoena”). The Subpoena requests, among other things, all documents in DOB’s possession regarding Father Romano Ferraro (“Ferraro”), a priest formerly employed by the DOB who served for a period of time at a parish within the Diocese of Rockville Centre (““DRVC”). See Smith Decl., Ex. A at 12. Plaintiff, Alan D. Halperin, solely as Trustee of the DRVC Abuse Claims Trust (the “Trust”), seeks indemnity coverage from Arrowood for claims asserted against the DRVC involving sexual abuse allegedly committed by Ferraro while serving as a priest in the DRVC. It is Arrowood’s understanding that the documents requested in the Subpoena relating to Ferraro are in the possession of the DOB. Counsel for Arrowood and the DOB were unable to resolve the scope of the DOB’s response to the Subpoena, and Arrowood now brings the instant letter-motion requesting a discovery conference with the Court. Arrowood disagrees with the DOB’s objections to the scope of the Subpoena and the proposed limitations on the DOB’s response. The DOB’s first objection to the Subpoena is on the grounds that it seeks “confidential” and “sensitive” information regarding lawsuits against the DOB which involve abuse allegedly committed by Ferraro. See Smith Decl., Ex. B at 3. However, the fact that the materials requested in the Subpoena may be “confidential” or “sensitive” because they relate to ongoing litigation are not valid bases upon which to withhold 1“Smith Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Adam M. Smith, Esq., dated September 23, 2025, filed contemporaneously herewith.

Coughlin Midlige & Garland. Hon. Sarah L. Cave September 23, 2025 Page 2 of 3 otherwise relevant documents and information. See Impact Envtl. Consulting v. Chillak,

, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2016). Further, the DOB’s concerns about confidentiality and the use of responsive Ferraro documents in the DOB Action? are sufficiently addressed by the Protective Order that was entered in the DRVC Action in 2023. See ECF Nos. 158, 162. The Protective Order was actually drafted with input from DOB’s counsel in connection with a prior subpoena (the “2023 Subpoena’) and specifically limits the use of confidential information to the DRVC Action. ECF No. 158 at § 2. The DOB also improperly places its own artificial limitations on what it considers “relevant” to Arrowood’s coverage defenses in the DRVC Action, agreeing only to produce those documents (a) specifying “notice” to the DRVC of abuse by Ferraro, and (b) concerning abuse that occurred during the Arrowood policy periods.* See Smith Decl., Ex. B at 4. In the DRVC Action, the Trust seeks indemnity coverage from Arrowood for at least seven claims filed by individuals that allegedly suffered abuse by Ferraro during his time with the DRVC. If the Trust and/or DRVC were in possession of Ferraro’s personnel file, Arrowood would have requested the same information from those parties. However, because Ferraro was employed by the DOB, it is the DOB who ts in possession of the file. This makes the Subpoena to the DOB requesting Ferraro- related documents necessary for Arrowood’s claims and defenses in the DRVC Action. The documents sought in the Subpoena are relevant to, among other things, Arrowood’s expected or intended coverage defense as well as whether the Trust had any legal liability to the abuse claimants—issues requiring discovery as to the DRVC’s knowledge, or lack thereof, of an alleged perpetrator’s abusive tendencies. Any document concerning abuse in Ferraro’s personnel file — regardless of whether it specifically mentions notice to the DRVC, or whether it specifically concerns abuse between 1956 and 1976 — is unquestionably relevant to what the DRVC knew, and when, about the likelihood that Ferraro would abuse minor parishioners. See ECF No. 84 [Judge Caproni Opinion] at 11 (questions about “who in the [DRVC] knew what when and whether individuals within the [DOB] communicated what they knew to their colleagues in the [DRVC] such that the only permissible conclusion is that sexual abuse had to have been intended or expected by the [DRVC]” need to be answered “before Arrowood’s duty to indemnify can be determined”); C.\T. v. Diocese of Brooklyn,

, 786 (2d Dep’t 2025) (documents relating to post-abuse investigation were “material and necessary” to “establish whether the Diocese had actual or constructive notice of [the perpetrator’s] alleged propensity to engage in the sexual abuse of children” prior to the abuse at issue); Trinidad v. Roman Catholic Diocese of 2 The “DOB Action” refers to the pending lawsuit captioned Arrowood Indemnity Company, in Liquidation v. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-06281-LDH-TAM (E.D.N.Y.). 3 The limitation in the 2023 Subpoena to documents concerning “notice” to DRVC mirrored the language of Judge Rochon’s December 13, 2022 Opinion, which limited discovery in the DRVC Action to duty to defend issues such as late notice. See ECF No. 122 at 29. The scope of discovery has since been expanded to encompass Arrowood’s duty to indemnify. See ECF No. 213 at 1.

Coughlin Midlige & Garland. Hon. Sarah L. Cave September 23, 2025 Page 3 of 3 Brooklyn,

(E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2023) (“Other victims’ allegations of abuse are relevant to show a pattern of conduct of which the Parish and/or Diocese were aware but failed to address.”). Based on the foregoing, Arrowood respectfully requests a discovery conference before the Court to address the DOB’s response to the Subpoena. Very truly yours, COUGHLIN MIDLIGE & GARLAND LLP

Adam M. Smith, Esq. ce: counsel of record (via ECF) Dennis J. Artese, Esq. (via [email protected]) Thomas Dupont, Esq. (via tdupont(@andersonkill.com)