Ema Financial, LLC v. Vystar Corp.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:19-cv-01545
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ema Financial v. Vystar, Judge Gorenstein denied without prejudice EMA’s request to compel Worldwide Stock Transfer’s subpoena compliance.
EMA Financial, LLC and Worldwide Stock Transfer, LLC, regarding EMA’s subpoena in the litigation involving Vystar Corp.
What happened
In Ema Financial, LLC v. Vystar Corp., EMA asked the court to require Worldwide Stock Transfer, LLC to provide more complete responses to a subpoena. EMA said Worldwide had produced some documents but left requests unanswered, used improper redactions, and failed to explain whether it was withholding documents.
EMA argued the subpoena sought information relevant to Vystar’s counterclaims, including allegations that EMA manipulated Vystar’s stock price. EMA also requested attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the request.
Judge Gorenstein denied the request without prejudice, stating that EMA could submit a new request if necessary and compliant with the court’s stated requirement.
The detailed version
- Ema Financial, LLC v. Vystar Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-01545
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Oct. 8, 2021
Background
EMA Financial, LLC asked the court to compel Worldwide Stock Transfer, LLC to comply with a subpoena for documents and testimony. The subpoena was served on or about May 7, 2021, and was returnable July 12, 2021. Worldwide initially served objections that EMA characterized as boilerplate and nonspecific. Worldwide later produced some documents, but EMA said the production remained incomplete, included improper redactions, and did not clearly identify whether documents were being withheld.
The parties held meet-and-confer discussions. Worldwide’s counsel later stated that Worldwide had produced all responsive documents for certain requests, had no documents responsive to several others, and had withheld no documents. EMA responded that Worldwide had not addressed the remaining requests or provided unredacted documents. EMA said those remaining requests, as modified by the court’s August 3, 2021 rulings, included requests 3 through 6, 16, and 17.
Positions and requested relief
EMA argued that the subpoena sought information relevant to, and in some instances potentially dispositive of, its claims against Vystar. According to the letter, Vystar’s counterclaims alleged that Vystar had repaid a loan through share conversions and that EMA acquired more shares than the agreements allowed. The counterclaims also alleged stock manipulation and that EMA pushed Vystar’s stock price downward by selling stock into the market.
EMA asked the court to order Worldwide’s objections waived to the extent they did not assert privilege, require complete responses within 14 days, and award attorneys’ fees and costs. The opinion text does not provide a separate ruling on each requested form of relief.
Ruling
Judge Gorenstein denied the request without prejudice, with the endorsement stating: “denied without prejudice to anew if necessary, compliant with 2.A.” The provided text does not explain what “2.A.” refers to or give additional reasons for the denial. The ruling concerned EMA’s effort to obtain further compliance by Worldwide with the subpoena.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.