Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc.
- Kimba Wood
- 1:99-cv-10175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Patsy’s Brand v. I.O.B. Realty, Judge Wood granted Plaintiffs’ motion to quash untimely subpoenas and deferred their fee request.
Patsy’s Brand, Inc., the other named parties, and non-party AT&T were affected by the ruling on the subpoenas; the Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs request remained undecided.
What happened
In Patsy’s Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., the Plaintiffs asked the court on an emergency basis to quash subpoenas directed to non-party AT&T. The court noted that the limited discovery period had ended.
The court said the subpoenas fell outside the narrow scope and time period previously allowed for discovery. It also stated that no additional discovery was warranted because the matter was paused during a post-judgment contempt proceeding and the court had nearly all the evidence needed to resolve the issues.
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the motion and quashed the Defendants’ subpoenas. The court deferred deciding the Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs until after ruling on the underlying contempt allegations.
The detailed version
- Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. · No. 1:99-cv-10175
- Kimba Wood
- Apr. 20, 2020
Background
The Plaintiffs moved on an emergency basis to quash subpoenas directed to non-party AT&T. The case was in a post-judgment contempt posture, and the court had previously allowed only a small number of interrogatories and discovery requests on an expedited schedule. The court had also directed the Defendants to cure deficiencies in discovery already produced.
Analysis
The court stated that no other discovery had occurred and that no additional discovery was warranted. The matter was paused mid-hearing, and the court had received extensive written direct testimony. The court explained that, but for delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it would already have received the evidence needed to resolve the contempt allegations. The Defendants’ subpoenas fell outside the narrow scope and time period authorized for discovery. The court cited decisions recognizing timeliness as an independent basis for quashing a subpoena.
Ruling
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the Plaintiffs’ motion and quashed the Defendants’ subpoenas. The court deferred ruling on the Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A)(ii), stating that it would address fee issues after deciding the underlying contempt allegations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.