Legal Recovery Associates LLC v. Brenes Law Group, P.C.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-01778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Legal Recovery Associates LLC v. Brenes Law Group, Judge Moses denied nonparties’ application to challenge subpoenas, allowing renewal in the Western District of New York.
California Attorney Lending, LLC, Megan Payne, and Steven Mingle, who sought to challenge subpoenas issued by Legal Recovery Associates LLC.
What happened
In Legal Recovery Associates LLC v. Brenes Law Group, nonparties California Attorney Lending, LLC, Megan Payne, and Steven Mingle asked for permission to seek an order canceling subpoenas and to pause compliance. The subpoenas sought documents and testimony about a loan from California Attorney Lending to Brenes Law Group, P.C. The nonparties argued that the requests were burdensome, irrelevant, and sought confidential business information.
The court denied the application. The denial was based on the court’s statement that the authority to cancel or change a subpoena belongs to the court in the district where compliance is required.
Judge Barbara C. Moses denied the application without prejudice to renewal in the Western District of New York. The ruling addressed where the subpoena challenge should be brought; it did not decide whether the subpoenas should ultimately be canceled.
The detailed version
- Legal Recovery Associates LLC v. Brenes Law Group, P.C. · No. 1:22-cv-01778
- Edgardo Ramos
- June 6, 2023
Background
Legal Recovery Associates LLC sued Brenes Law Group, P.C. and Troy Brenes for breach of contract and breach of a related guaranty. According to the letter, Legal Recovery Associates alleged that Brenes Law Group violated promissory notes by granting a security interest in collateral to a third-party lender. Brenes Law Group asserted a counterclaim alleging breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The nonparties California Attorney Lending, LLC, Megan Payne, and Steven Mingle were served with subpoenas under Rule 45, the federal rule governing subpoenas to obtain documents or testimony. The subpoena to California Attorney Lending sought documents concerning its loan to Brenes Law Group. The subpoenas to Payne and Mingle sought testimony about that loan. The letter states that Payne and Mingle are employees of the business servicing the loan.
Arguments in the Application
The nonparties asked for permission to file a motion to quash, meaning a motion asking the court to cancel or modify the subpoenas. They also asked the court to stay, or pause, subpoena compliance while that motion was pending.
They argued that the requested information should instead be obtained from Brenes Law Group and was overly burdensome. They also argued that the information was not relevant to Legal Recovery Associates’ contract claim or to Brenes Law Group’s counterclaim. Finally, they argued that the subpoenas sought confidential and proprietary information, including collateral reports, internal escrow arrangements, reserves, and other information about California Attorney Lending’s credit relationship with Brenes Law Group. The letter also states that California Attorney Lending and Legal Recovery Associates are competitors in litigation financing.
Ruling
The court stated that the authority to quash or modify a subpoena belongs to the court for the district where compliance is required. It therefore denied the application without prejudice to renewal in the Western District of New York. “Without prejudice” means the request was not permanently barred from being renewed there.
Judge Barbara C. Moses did not rule on whether the subpoenas were burdensome, irrelevant, or confidentially improper. The order was limited to denying the application in this court and identifying the Western District of New York as the place where renewal could be sought.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.