Weng v. Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen, Inc.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:17-cv-00273
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Weng v. Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen, Judge Preska denied defense counsel’s motion to quash post-judgment subpoenas.
The plaintiffs may obtain the requested post-judgment payment information, and defense counsel must produce it by September 21, 2023.
What happened
In Weng v. Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen, the plaintiffs served subpoenas seeking information about payments received from or on behalf of Zhe Song, also known as Peter Song, since January 13, 2017.
Defense counsel asked the court to quash the subpoenas. The court explained that post-judgment discovery may be used to help collect a judgment and that client identities and fee information generally are not protected by attorney-client privilege.
Judge Preska denied the motion to quash and ordered defense counsel to produce the requested information by September 21, 2023. The Clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Weng v. Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00273
- Loretta Preska
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ letters concerning defense counsel’s motion to quash subpoenas served by the plaintiffs. The subpoenas sought documents and communications concerning payments received from or on behalf of Zhe Song, also known as Peter Song, since January 13, 2017. The requests included wire transfers, direct deposits, other money transfers, and information about the sending accounts, including banks, account numbers, and SWIFT codes.
Legal standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 permits a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, when the discovery will assist with collecting a judgment. The court also cited New York law concerning information subpoenas used to obtain information relevant to a judgment debtor’s satisfaction of a judgment.
The court held that client identities and information about fees paid or retainer agreements are not protected by attorney-client privilege absent special circumstances. It concluded that this was the type of information sought by the plaintiffs’ subpoenas.
Ruling
Judge Preska denied defense counsel’s motion to quash, identified as docket entry 165. The court ordered defense counsel to produce the requested information immediately and no later than September 21, 2023. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.