Medequa LLC v. O'Neill & Partners LLC

Background

Medequa LLC, identified as a judgment creditor, served a subpoena on Citibank to help enforce its judgment against O'Neill & Partners LLC. The subpoena requested all records in Citibank's possession, custody, or control relating to accounts held for or by the judgment debtor or Brian O'Neill from January 1, 2019, through the present. The requested records included financial information concerning Brian O'Neill and accounts held jointly with his wife, Laura O'Neill, who together with Brian are the Movants.

The Movants sought to quash the subpoena and obtain a protective order under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5240. They argued that the subpoena sought personal and confidential financial information, including sensitive information concerning their children; that they were non-parties; and that the information duplicated records Medequa obtained from TD Bank.

Motion to Quash

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) permits a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from any person to aid enforcement of a judgment, using the federal rules or the procedure of the state where the court is located. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5223 likewise permits a judgment creditor to compel disclosure of all matter relevant to satisfying the judgment by subpoena.

The court held that Medequa established the subpoena's relevance. The record showed that assets of the judgment debtor had gone into the Citibank accounts and that O'Neill had paid invoices from an account. The court described broad post-judgment discovery from third parties, including banks, as normal in federal and New York state courts. It also held that receiving information from TD Bank did not prevent Medequa from seeking records from Citibank.

The court further stated that a party generally lacks standing—the legal ability to challenge a subpoena—to object to a non-party subpoena based on relevance or undue burden. The Movants did not show that the subpoena lacked authority, relevance, or a factual basis. The court also found that the cases and arguments cited by the Movants concerned pretrial discovery rather than discovery used to enforce an existing judgment.

Protective Order

The Movants also requested a protective order requiring Citibank to provide produced documents first to the defendant and the Movants. They relied on their privacy and confidentiality concerns and argued that the information was not discovery. The court found that they did not explain specifically why a protective order was needed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice, and had not met their burden under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3108.

Disposition

The court denied the Movants' motion. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the open motion at ECF No. 169.