Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:22-cv-03476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Tang Capital Partners v. BRC Inc.: Judge Lehrburger denied Tang Capital’s motion to compel documents from four directors without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Tang Capital Partners, LP and the four BRC Inc. directors from whom Tang Capital sought documents; BRC Inc. was the defendant.
What happened
Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc. involved Tang Capital’s request to require four BRC directors to produce documents. The request was made in a letter motion.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the directors. Tang Capital had not provided enough evidence that any director lived, worked, or regularly conducted in-person business within 100 miles of the court, so this was not the proper court to enforce the subpoenas.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger also ruled that the directors had not given up their right to challenge the court’s authority by waiting or discussing possible compliance with Tang Capital. The Clerk was asked to terminate the letter motion at Docket 84.
The detailed version
- Tang Capital Partners, LP v. BRC Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03476
- Robert Lehrburger
- June 21, 2023
Background
Tang Capital moved to compel four directors of BRC Inc. to produce documents. Tang Capital first filed the letter motion on June 5, 2023, at Docket 69, and resubmitted it on June 16, 2023, at Docket 84.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied the motion without prejudice because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the directors. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a subpoena for documents may require compliance only within 100 miles of where the subpoenaed person lives, works, or regularly conducts business in person. A motion to compel compliance must be brought in the court where compliance is required.
Tang Capital did not provide enough evidence to show that any of the directors lived, worked, or regularly conducted business in person within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York. The court therefore concluded that it was not the proper court to decide the motion to compel. The court agreed with the directors’ counsel that the directors had not waived their right to challenge the court’s authority by the passage of time or by negotiating with Tang Capital about possible compliance.
Disposition
The court denied Tang Capital’s motion to compel without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was respectfully requested to terminate the letter motion at Docket 84.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.