Lask v. Rhee-Karn
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:24-cv-02666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lask v. Rhee-Karn, Judge Lehrburger denied Lask’s motion after defendants represented that no such subpoena was ever served.
Plaintiff Susan Chana Lask and the defendants in the case; the requested subpoena and video production were not ordered.
What happened
In Lask v. Rhee-Karn, Plaintiff Susan Chana Lask asked the court to intervene over what she said was a concealed subpoena for a surveillance video. She said Defendants had obtained the video without giving her the notice required by the federal civil rules.
Lask asked the court to order Defendants to produce subpoenas issued in the case and the surveillance video, and to admonish them for the alleged conduct. Defendants represented that no such subpoena was ever served.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the motion in light of Defendants’ representation. The order did not provide further findings about whether a subpoena was issued or whether the video existed.
The detailed version
- Lask v. Rhee-Karn · No. 1:24-cv-02666
- Robert Lehrburger
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
Susan Chana Lask filed a letter motion concerning an alleged third-party subpoena for a surveillance videotape. Lask asserted that Defendants obtained the video without serving her with the notice and copy required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(4) before a subpoena for documents or tangible things is served. She referred to testimony at an April 17, 2025 hearing in which a defendant allegedly said she had reviewed a surveillance video and another defendant allegedly said the video had been obtained through a subpoena.
Requested Relief
Lask asked the court to order Defendants to immediately produce all subpoenas they had issued in the case and a copy of the surveillance video. She also asked the court to admonish Defendants for allegedly violating the federal rules and denying her fair notice. The motion asserted that the video might bear on a witness’s account concerning a process server and might contain evidence of perjury.
Ruling
The court denied the motion in light of Defendants’ representation that no such subpoena was ever served. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger’s order did not make additional findings about whether a subpoena was issued, whether the video existed, or whether Rule 45(a)(4) was violated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.