Antus v. Frontrunner Technologies USA, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:23-cv-07058
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Antus v. Frontrunner, Judge Garnett ordered the defendants to respond to Antus’s motion to compel post-judgment discovery by February 28, 2025.
Antus, the judgment creditor, seeks financial and asset information from the defendants to pursue collection of the judgment. The defendants must respond to the motion to compel by February 28, 2025, while counsel must continue meeting and discussing the dispute.
What happened
In Antus v. Frontrunner Technologies USA, Inc., Antus sought information about the defendants’ assets after obtaining a $267,980.77 judgment, plus interest, following default proceedings. The requested information included bank-account records, assets, financial statements, transactions, and tax returns.
The defendants did not provide the requested documents by the subpoena deadline. Their lawyer asked for 90 more days, while Antus offered a shorter extension if the defendants supplied certain account and asset information. The opinion says those documents had not been provided.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered the defendants to respond to Antus’s motion to compel by February 28, 2025, and ordered the lawyers to continue discussing the dispute. The court said it would likely grant the motion if no response was filed, but it did not grant the motion at this stage.
The detailed version
- Antus v. Frontrunner Technologies USA, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07058
- Garnett
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
The case had been closed after the Clerk entered a final judgment against the defendants on January 3, 2025, following default proceedings and an inquest. The judgment was for $267,980.77, plus $58,125.03 in prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest.
Antus served the defendants with subpoenas seeking information relevant to collecting the judgment. The requests included bank-account information, account balances, evidence of assets, profit-and-loss statements, balance sheets, transactions from 2020 through 2025, and tax returns from 2020 through 2024. The subpoena required production by January 31, 2025.
Nathan Elliot, identified as the chief executive officer of both corporate defendants, acknowledged receiving the subpoena. A lawyer representing the defendants then requested an additional 90 days to produce the documents. Antus offered a two-week extension if the defendants first provided specified banking information and a list of Elliot’s assets worth more than $10,000. The defendants’ lawyer responded that the requested information was not available and said he was working on a settlement proposal. Antus reported that the requested documents still had not been produced.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the defendants to respond to Antus’s motion to compel by February 28, 2025. A motion to compel asks the court to require a party to provide discovery. The court stated that if no response was filed by that date, it would treat the motion as unopposed and was likely to grant it.
The court also ordered the lawyers to continue meeting and discussing the discovery dispute in an effort to resolve it without further court intervention. Antus’s lawyer had to serve the order on the defendants by February 14, 2025, by email to the defendants’ lawyer and by first-class mail to the defendants, and had to file proof of service by February 18, 2025. The order did not itself grant or deny the motion to compel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.