Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-09346
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Saladino v. Tufano, Judge McCarthy denied Tufano’s motion to quash bank subpoenas seeking financial information for trademark damages.
Frank Tufano and Frankie’s Free-Range Meat, LLC remain subject to the bank subpoenas seeking their financial information for Saladino’s damages claim. The order also affects Saladino, who may use the subpoenas in the damages inquest.
What happened
In Paul Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, Saladino sought financial information from multiple banks after the court entered a default judgment against Tufano and Frankie’s Free-Range Meat, LLC in a trademark case.
Tufano asked the court to stop the subpoenas, arguing that they sought false or irrelevant information, included information about other entities, and concerned assets he did not have or no longer used in his business. Saladino argued that the motion was late and that the subpoenas were relevant to determining damages.
The court considered the late motion but denied it. Judge McCarthy ruled that the subpoenas sought ordinary post-judgment financial information, that Tufano had not supported his objections with evidence, and that he acknowledged the subpoenas sought information only about the defendants.
The detailed version
- Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano · No. 7:20-cv-09346
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
Paul Saladino brought a trademark-infringement action against Frank Tufano and Frankie’s Free-Range Meat, LLC. The court entered a default judgment against both defendants on January 30, 2025, and referred the case for an inquest—a proceeding to determine whether Saladino had adequately supported the damages he sought.
Saladino issued subpoenas to multiple banks seeking the defendants’ financial information in support of his damages claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Tufano, who was proceeding without a lawyer, moved to quash, or cancel, the subpoenas.
Arguments
Tufano argued that Saladino’s counsel had obtained false and irrelevant information with an improper purpose, including to fabricate damages. He also argued that the subpoenas improperly sought information about entities that were not defendants and stated that he had no significant personal assets and no longer operated a business under the “Frankie’s Free Range Meat LLC” name.
Saladino argued that Tufano’s motion was untimely because it was filed after the subpoenas’ return dates. He also argued that broad financial discovery is generally permitted after judgment, that the subpoenas were relevant to his damages claim, and that they were limited to the defendants’ financial information.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed that the motion was untimely but exercised its discretion to consider it. A motion to quash a subpoena is a request to prevent or limit the subpoena, and the moving party bears the burden of persuading the court that this relief is warranted.
The court rejected Tufano’s objections. It found that his allegations about counsel’s conduct were conclusory and unsupported by evidence. The court also held that the requested bank records were typical post-judgment discovery used to assess a judgment debtor’s assets, and that obtaining asset information from third-party banks was not unusual.
The court found Tufano’s assertions about his lack of assets and the business name irrelevant because a default judgment had been entered against both defendants and Saladino sought the financial information solely to support his damages claim. The court also found that Tufano offered no proof that the subpoenas sought information about other parties; indeed, he acknowledged in his reply that the subpoenas sought information only about the defendants.
Disposition
Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied Tufano’s Motion to Quash Subpoena. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and mail a copy of the order to Tufano.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.