Sound Around v. Friedman

Background

Sound Around alleges that Moises Friedman, Shulim Eliezer Ilowitz, and several companies misused confidential and trade-secret information, diverted business opportunities, used Sound Around’s trademarks and trade dress, and took company money. The defendants largely deny those allegations and assert counterclaims involving alleged underpayment of commissions, breach of contract, interference with contractual and prospective business relationships, conversion, and common-law indemnification. They also contend that Friedman and Ilowitz became independent contractors at different times and received sales commissions.

On July 24, 2025, the defendants served identical subpoenas on Saul Friedman, CPA, and Steven L. Topal, CPA, who had been Sound Around accountants at various times. The subpoenas sought seven categories of records, including tax returns, payments to the defendants, sales receipts, tax forms, payroll records, business expenses, and accounting ledgers. The defendants later limited the requests to 2019 through 2024. They said the records were relevant to the commission-related claims and to whether Friedman and Ilowitz were employees or independent contractors.

Sound Around and Topal objected to some requests as overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, or confidential. They did not object to requests for records concerning Sound Around or Jazzy Electronics, and they did not object to requests for certain employment and tax records. Saul Friedman did not respond. During the hearing, Sound Around stated that it did not object to records concerning Sound Around or Jazzy Electronics and initially represented that Pyramid Sound had no relevant records. Sound Around later stated that Pyramid Sound might have records concerning revenue allocated to products shipped from California before 2022.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows a party to subpoena documents from a nonparty, but the requesting party must avoid imposing an undue burden or expense. Rule 26(b) limits discovery to information relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery initially must show relevance and proportionality; the opposing party then bears the burden of showing that the material is privileged or unduly burdensome.

Ruling

The court concluded that the motion was moot to the extent Topal was willing to produce documents and Sound Around did not object to records concerning Sound Around, Pyramid Sound, and Jazzy Electronics. The court nevertheless expressly granted the motion as to Pyramid Sound after Sound Around’s later representation that Pyramid Sound might have records relevant to defendants’ sales and commission calculations.

The court ordered Topal and Saul Friedman to produce documents in their possession responsive to the subpoenas concerning Sound Around, Pyramid Sound, and Jazzy Electronics for the period 2019 through 2024. The order required production within 14 days.

The court denied the motion to compel to the extent it sought records concerning the Brach Family Foundation. Sound Around’s counsel represented that the Foundation did not make payments to Sound Around and that Sound Around instead made an annual contribution to the Foundation. The defendants did not establish that the Foundation’s records were relevant. The motion was therefore granted in part and otherwise denied. The court did not decide the noted standing issue concerning Topal because his counsel said he was asserting no objections independent of Sound Around’s objections.