Pop Top Corp v. Rakuten Kobo Inc.

Background

After the court granted summary judgment for Rakuten Kobo Inc. in 2022, it awarded Kobo $274,721.43 in attorneys’ fees under the Patent Act. Pop Top Corp. did not timely pay the award. The court later added Pop Top’s principal, Rohit Chandra, as a judgment debtor after finding that he was Pop Top’s alter ego and that adding him would not violate due process. Chandra appealed that order, and the appeal remained pending when this order was issued.

Kobo then served post-judgment discovery seeking information about Chandra’s personal assets. The discovery included subpoenas to Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo, interrogatories directed to Chandra, and a debtor’s examination. A debtor’s examination is a proceeding in which a judgment creditor questions a judgment debtor about assets and finances that may be used to satisfy a judgment. Chandra moved to quash the subpoenas and examination, sought a protective order concerning the interrogatories, and requested sanctions against Kobo.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) permits a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, to help enforce a judgment. The court explained that post-judgment discovery is broad but remains subject to limits based on proportionality, harassment, and whether the discovery is reasonably calculated to produce relevant information.

Court’s reasoning

The court rejected Chandra’s argument that his Federal Circuit appeal automatically stayed the discovery. It held that the appeal did not automatically stop post-judgment discovery, particularly because Chandra had not sought a stay of enforcement or posted a bond.

The court also rejected Chandra’s claim that he was a nonparty. The August 15, 2024 order adding him as a judgment debtor remained in effect because the Federal Circuit had not yet decided his appeal. The court therefore found that his nonparty argument had no merit.

The court further concluded that Chandra had not shown that the discovery was duplicative, overly broad, irrelevant, or unduly burdensome. His prior questioning about his finances did not prevent Kobo from seeking additional information, particularly because more than a year and a half had passed and his financial circumstances might have changed. The court stated that Kobo was entitled to investigate Chandra’s personal assets through bank subpoenas, interrogatories, and a debtor’s examination.

The court found that privacy concerns could be addressed because Kobo had agreed to treat Chandra’s bank records as confidential subject to a protective order. It ordered the parties to jointly submit a proposed stipulated protective order by July 7, 2025. The court also found no basis for sanctions because the record did not show harassing or abusive tactics, undue burden, or obviously irrelevant discovery. Chandra’s self-represented status did not excuse compliance with the federal and local rules or court orders.

Disposition

The court denied Chandra’s motion. The order therefore allowed Kobo’s post-judgment discovery to proceed, subject to the confidentiality-related protective-order process described by the court.