Soudani v. Soudani
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-09905
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Soudani v. Soudani, Judge Halpern denied the motion to quash Eman Soudani’s subpoena to Walden Savings Bank.
Eman Soudani, Mout’z Soudani, the listed nonparties who joined the motion, and Walden Savings Bank were affected. The motion to quash was denied, and the subpoena remained in effect after the court found the requested records relevant and the undue-burden argument moot.
What happened
In Soudani v. Soudani, Mout’z Soudani and several nonparties asked the court to cancel a subpoena requiring Walden Savings Bank to produce documents. They argued that the subpoena was too burdensome because it sought records and communications covering 47 years.
Eman Soudani argued that the financial records were relevant to her defenses against Mout’z Soudani’s counterclaims for conversion and unjust enrichment. She also argued that the motion no longer mattered because the bank had already produced the requested documents. Mout’z Soudani acknowledged that the bank had complied.
Judge Halpern denied the motion to quash. He ruled that the requested records were relevant and material, and that the burden argument was moot because Walden Savings Bank had already produced responsive documents.
The detailed version
- Soudani v. Soudani · No. 7:23-cv-09905
- Philip Halpern
- June 28, 2024
Background
Eman Soudani issued a subpoena requiring Walden Savings Bank, which was not a party to the case, to produce documents. Mout’z Soudani and the listed nonparties moved to quash, meaning they asked the court to cancel or limit the subpoena. The subpoena was dated May 16, 2024, and sought bank records and communications through twelve requests covering 47 years.
Arguments and Legal Standard
The moving parties argued that the subpoena placed an undue burden on Walden Savings Bank. Eman Soudani responded that the financial records were relevant to her defenses against Mout’z Soudani’s counterclaims for conversion and unjust enrichment, which arose from allegations that she aided and abetted her son in fraud and embezzlement of Mout’z Soudani’s money. She also argued that the motion was moot because the bank had already produced responsive documents. Mout’z Soudani conceded that the bank had complied with the subpoena.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a court may quash or modify a subpoena that allows too little time to comply, exceeds geographic limits, requires disclosure of protected information, or creates an undue burden. The party issuing the subpoena must first show that the requested information is relevant and material. If that showing is made, the party seeking to quash the subpoena must show that it is unduly burdensome.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Eman Soudani had shown that the subpoena sought financial records relevant and material to Mout’z Soudani’s counterclaims. The burden therefore shifted to Mout’z Soudani to show that the subpoena imposed an undue burden or required disclosure of privileged information.
The court ruled that the undue-burden argument was moot because Walden Savings Bank had already produced documents responsive to the subpoena. The court concluded that Mout’z Soudani had not met the burden of showing that the subpoena was unduly burdensome or otherwise privileged.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to quash the subpoena issued by Eman Soudani to Walden Savings Bank. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 40.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.