Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. v. EMA Financial, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-02375-LGS-RWL
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Parallax Health Sciences v. EMA Financial, Judge Schofield denied EMA’s request to compel post-judgment subpoena responses, without prejudice, and ordered the parties to meet and confer.
EMA Financial, LLC and Parallax Health Sciences, Inc., regarding discovery intended to help enforce a judgment.
What happened
Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. v. EMA Financial, LLC concerns EMA’s effort to obtain information from Parallax after a judgment was entered for EMA. EMA said Parallax had not responded to subpoenas seeking information about its bank accounts, assets, accounting records, and accounts receivable.
EMA asked the court to order Parallax to comply with those subpoenas. EMA relied on federal and New York procedures allowing a judgment creditor to seek information relevant to collecting a judgment.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application without prejudice to renewal. She directed the parties to meet and confer about the subpoenas and any other unresolved issues before seeking further court action.
The detailed version
- Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. v. EMA Financial, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02375-LGS-RWL
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 9, 2023
Background
The court’s order addressed EMA Financial, LLC’s application to compel Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. to respond to post-judgment subpoenas. EMA stated that a July 7, 2022 judgment had been entered in its favor and against Parallax for damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. EMA served subpoenas on Parallax in December 2022 seeking information and documents relevant to satisfying the judgment, including bank-account information, accounting records, assets, and accounts receivable. EMA stated that Parallax had not responded.
Parties’ Positions
EMA argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and New York law allow a judgment creditor to obtain discovery relevant to collecting a judgment. It asked the court to direct Parallax to comply with the subpoenas. The opinion text does not include a substantive response from Parallax; the order refers to a March 9, 2023 letter from Plaintiff.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application, without prejudice to renewal. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about the post-judgment subpoenas and any other outstanding issues. If issues remained that required judicial resolution, the parties were instructed to file a joint letter on the electronic filing system describing those issues and their respective positions. The order did not direct Parallax to comply immediately with the subpoenas.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.