Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. v. Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc.

Background

The motion concerned Arrowhead’s post-judgment discovery requests. The submission supporting the motion argued that the movant was not a defendant or judgment debtor and therefore should not have to answer requests for documents and interrogatories. It also argued that the movant had previously appeared only to challenge subpoenas and personal jurisdiction.

The court’s order refers to the movant as PPL. The supporting submission refers to Picture Pro LLC. The supplied text does not explain this difference.

Court’s Reasoning

The court stated that even if PPL originally intervened only to move to quash subpoenas based on lack of personal jurisdiction, that effort ended when the court denied PPL’s motion to quash and denied Arrowhead’s motion to compel on February 5, 2021.

Four years later, PPL again intervened to challenge Arrowhead’s motion for turnover. This time, PPL raised service and state-law arguments but did not renew its personal-jurisdiction objection. Relying on precedent recognizing that personal jurisdiction can be waived expressly or implicitly, the court concluded that PPL’s later participation was inconsistent with continuing to challenge personal jurisdiction.

The court therefore determined that PPL was a party to the litigation and was subject to discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and related authority.

Disposition

After considering the written submission, the parties’ arguments at a June 25, 2025 telephone conference, and the record, the court denied PPL’s motion for a protective order. The court incorporated its oral decision from the conference by reference. It ordered PPL to respond to Arrowhead’s discovery requests by July 18, 2025, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 282.