Medequa LLC v. O'Neill & Partners LLC

Background

O'Neill & Partners LLC, the judgment debtor, moved under New York law to quash a subpoena that sought its bank records from TD Bank. It also requested a protective order if the motion to quash was denied. The subpoena was issued in connection with post-judgment discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2), which permits a judgment creditor to obtain information from people or entities about the judgment debtor's assets.

Standing to Challenge the Subpoena

The court denied the motion to quash because O'Neill lacked standing, meaning it did not have the legally sufficient interest needed to challenge the subpoena. The subpoena was directed to TD Bank, and the court concluded that the requested records belonged to TD Bank rather than O'Neill. The court relied on authorities holding that a bank customer generally has no proprietary interest in the bank's records and therefore cannot prevent the bank from producing them.

O'Neill relied on a prior decision involving a possible privacy interest in personal bank records. The court found that decision inapplicable because the records here concerned business, rather than personal, financial affairs. O'Neill identified no New York decision holding that a business has a privacy interest sufficient to challenge production of its bank records.

Protective-Order Request and Disposition

The court also denied the request for a protective order. It found that the records concerned only accounts or property owned by O'Neill or held by third parties for O'Neill's benefit, and that O'Neill had not shown a need for confidentiality. The court further stated that no protective order was necessary to protect third parties.

Judge Hellerstein denied both the motion to quash and the request for a protective order. The court ordered TD Bank to comply with the subpoena and produce the requested records by October 19, 2022, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 117.