Gordon v. Equitas Capital Group, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-06789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gordon v. Equitas Capital Group, Judge Figueredo scheduled a conference on defendants’ request to quash a third-party subpoena without deciding the request.
McLean Gordon, defendants Equitas Capital Group, LLC and Alex Leykind, and third-party Ponce Bank are affected by the unresolved dispute over the subpoena and the timing and scope of discovery.
What happened
In Gordon v. Equitas Capital Group, defendants Equitas Capital Group, LLC and Alex Leykind asked the court to quash a subpoena that McLean Gordon had served on Ponce Bank. They argued that the subpoena was issued before the parties completed the required discovery process.
Defendants said the parties had not completed a required conference about discovery or submitted a discovery plan to the court. They also argued that the subpoena was too broad. Gordon’s lawyer disagreed that the required conference had not occurred and said he might narrow the subpoena’s requests.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo did not decide whether to quash the subpoena. She directed that the issues be addressed at a conference scheduled for August 27, 2025, and required Gordon to respond to defendants’ letter by August 22, 2025.
The detailed version
- Gordon v. Equitas Capital Group, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-06789
- Andrew Carter
- July 7, 2025
Background
Defendants Equitas Capital Group, LLC and Alex Leykind submitted a letter requesting a court conference about a proposed motion for a protective order. A protective order is a court order limiting or preventing discovery. Defendants sought to quash, or cancel, a subpoena that McLean Gordon had served on third-party Ponce Bank.
The request concerned Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), which generally bars a party from seeking discovery before the parties have held the discovery conference required by Rule 26(f). Defendants argued that the parties had not completed a Rule 26(f) conference as required because their April 24, 2025 telephone call was subject to defendants’ planned request to stay discovery, unresolved issues remained, and no written discovery plan had been submitted to the court.
Parties’ positions
Defendants argued that the subpoena violated Rule 26(d)(1) and therefore had to be quashed. They also said the subpoena was overly broad and that its scope should be limited if discovery proceeded.
Gordon’s counsel maintained that a Rule 26(f) conference had occurred. He acknowledged that defendants had not agreed to submit a discovery plan to the court and said he might be willing to narrow the subpoena’s requests. The parties reported that they were at an impasse over whether the subpoena violated Rule 26(d)(1).
Court action
The court did not grant or deny the request to quash the subpoena. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered that the issues raised in the defendants’ letter be addressed at a conference scheduled for August 27, 2025. The court also directed Gordon to respond to the defendants’ letter by August 22, 2025.
The document does not resolve the pending motion to dismiss or the parties’ underlying claims. It addresses the timing and scope of discovery only.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.