NOW COMES Defendant, by and through its attorney, Patrick A. Maizy, in reply to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, and states as follows:

1. On December 18, 2020, Defendant served upon [Redacted] seven (7) pages of bank statements for various months between February 2015 and April 2016. (see Exhibit 1 – Proof of Service of Bank Statements and Exhibit 2 – Bank Statements). [Note: these documents were produced in addition to 1) the initial invoice dated 3/20/2015, and 2) the payment history finalized on 3/23/2016, which were both produced on November 2, 2020].

2. On December 30, 2020, [Redacted] filed the motion-at-bar, in which [Redacted] blatantly falsifies the truth by stating that, “Defendant merely produced two (2) self-made documents thus far.” (see Paragraph 5 of [Redacted]'s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, the motion-at-bar).

3. As indicated above and evidenced below, Defendant has in fact served bank statements, in which $194,254.29 is shown to have been deposited in the [Redacted]'s and Defendant’s jointly-held business account in the month of April 2016 alone, including $91,329.16 in checks (see page 3 of exhibit 2), as well as in which $47,281.96 is shown to have been spent by [Redacted] and/or his/her spouse.

4. Furthermore, Defendant has indicated to [Redacted] via email that roughly 90 pages more of bank statements are on the way via hard-copy, electronic copies of which would have been previously made available but for technical issues in regards to file size (relevant email thread between respective counsels available upon request), and has produced a sworn affidavit of Defendant, in which Defendant attests to [Redacted] having frequented the subject warehouse on dozens of occasions during the relevant time period.

5. In what appears to be a justification for amending its complaint to add counts Fraud and Unjust Enrichment, [Redacted] goes on to state that had Defendant raised its Statute of Limitations defense initially, [Redacted] may have “amended his/her complaint, or dismissed the action avoiding all subsequent time and money expended in connection with the suit,” (see Paragraph 8 of [Redacted]'s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, motion-at-bar), to which Defendant now responds that this issue has already been litigated, and that this Honorable Court, by granting the motion Defendant filed in November of 2020, has made its decision, namely, that Defendant can in fact advance a Statute of Limitations defense.

6. Put differently, [Redacted] appears to be suggesting that [Redacted] seeks to amend its complaint to include Fraud and Unjust Enrichment not because those allegations are factual, nor because new facts have been discovered that bring those counts into play, but rather, [Redacted] seeks to amend its complaint because [Redacted]'s conversion claims are now subject to dismissal.

7. [Redacted]'s final justification for its proposed amendment, as opposed to a scintilla of substance, is merely a restatement of [Redacted]'s previous blatantly false contention, specifically that Defendant has not produced documents relevant to its Statute of Limitations defense.

8. Being that [Redacted] has failed to make a showing of any new facts that have led to this proposed amendment, Defendant contends that the delay in seeking said amendment is undue.

9. Being that [Redacted] has failed to make a showing that its allegations of fraud and unjust enrichment are factual, Defendant contends that this amendment is futile.

10. Based on undue delay in requesting leave, undue prejudice to the Defendant that would result, and futility, Defendant requests that this Honorable Court deny [Redacted]'s Motion for Leave.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court deny [Redacted]'s request for leave to amend its complaint.