Batanjany v. Clear Street Management LLC
Michael Batanjany, Cory Solomon, Patrick Travers, and Jordan Brodsky v. Clear Street Management LLC, Clear Street Derivatives LLC, Clear Holdings LLC, Clear Street LLC, Clear Street Holdings LLC, Clear Street Group Inc., Uriel Ephraim Cohen, and Kenneth Ari Sicklick
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-08420
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Batanjany v. Clear Street, Judge Torres granted motions to quash subpoenas seeking nonparty testimony before a preliminary-injunction hearing.
Plaintiffs Michael Batanjany, Cory Solomon, Patrick Travers, and Jordan Brodsky; nonparties William Krinsky and Noel Kimmel; and the defendants seeking their subpoenaed testimony.
What happened
In Michael Batanjany, Cory Solomon, Patrick Travers, and Jordan Brodsky v. Clear Street Management LLC and others, the plaintiffs and two nonparties asked the court to cancel subpoenas requiring the nonparties to testify at a scheduled hearing. The plaintiffs had sought emergency relief concerning their employment-related registration records.
The court found that the subpoenas imposed an undue burden. The information about the plaintiffs’ communications with a future employer was not unique because the plaintiffs could testify about their own communications. The information was also less relevant to the hearing’s focus on what the defendants knew and why they acted. The subpoenas were served too shortly before the hearing, and one nonparty had not been served less than 48 hours beforehand.
The court granted both motions to quash the subpoenas. Judge Analisa Torres did not decide the underlying request for a preliminary injunction in this order.
The detailed version
- Batanjany v. Clear Street Management LLC · No. 1:25-cv-08420
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 12, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs, described in the opinion as registered broker-dealers, brought the action seeking emergency relief, including a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to amend filed Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration Forms to state that the plaintiffs voluntarily resigned. The court had scheduled a November 13, 2025 hearing and allowed the parties to present witness testimony.
The defendants served subpoenas on nonparties William Krinsky and Noel Kimmel to require their testimony at the hearing. The plaintiffs and Krinsky and Kimmel, through their attorney, each moved to quash the subpoenas. A motion to quash asks the court to cancel or modify a subpoena.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requires a court to quash or modify a subpoena when, among other things, it does not allow a reasonable time to comply or subjects a person to an undue burden. The issuing party must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense and initially must show that the requested information and testimony are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The person seeking to quash ultimately must show undue burden. The court balances the interests served by enforcing the subpoena against the interests served by quashing it.
Reasons for the ruling
The court found the subpoenas unduly burdensome for several reasons. First, even if Krinsky and Kimmel had relevant personal knowledge, their knowledge was not unique. The defendants could question the plaintiffs directly about their communications and negotiations with their future employer.
Second, although those communications could be relevant to whether the plaintiffs violated restrictive covenants, they were less relevant to the hearing’s central issue: what the defendants knew or believed when they took certain actions against the plaintiffs and what motivated those actions. Unless the defendants knew the details of the communications, those details would not show the defendants’ intent at the time. If the defendants or their agents did know the details, the defendants could obtain relevant information from their own witnesses or by questioning the plaintiffs’ witnesses. Krinsky and Kimmel also stated through counsel that they had no personal knowledge of the defendants’ alleged conduct.
Third, the subpoenas were served on short notice. As of November 11, Kimmel had not been served, less than 48 hours before the hearing. The papers indicated that Krinsky was served less than one week before a hearing that had been scheduled several weeks earlier, and complying would require changing preplanned travel.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to quash and granted Krinsky and Kimmel’s motion to quash. This order ruled on the subpoenas; it did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying request for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.