Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc.

S.D. New York

Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc.

DecidedApril 20, 2020

Docket1:99-cv-10175

StatusUnknown

This text of Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc. (Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: __________________ --------------------------------------------------------X DATE FILED: 4/20/20 PATSY’S BRAND, INC.,

Plaintiff, v. 99-CV-10175 (KMW) I.O.B. REALTY, INC., PATSY’S INC., FRANK ORDER BRIJA, JOHN BRECEVICH, and NICK TSOULOS,

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------X KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs have moved on an emergency basis to quash subpoenas directed to non-party AT&T. (ECF No. 286.) Because the limited discovery period in this matter is closed, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ request that the Court award attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing of this motion, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court defers ruling on this application. The Court will address all issues related to attorneys’ fees after rendering a decision on the underlying contempt allegations. During a hearing in this matter on October 30, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to propound a small number of interrogatories and discovery requests. (Tr. 104:19-25; ECF No. 238.) The Court ordered Defendants to respond on an expedited basis, because the requests related to “ground that everyone has plowed over very carefully.” (Tr. 107:1-2.) On December 3, 2019, the Court directed Defendants to take certain steps to cure deficiencies in the discovery produced pursuant to the Court’s October 30, 2019 Order. (ECF No. 243.) No other discovery has occurred, and none is warranted. This matter is paused mid- hearing in a post-judgment contempt posture. The issues facing the Court are the subject of extensive written direct testimony and, were it not for unforeseen delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court would have already received all evidence necessary for their resolution. Defendants’ pending subpoenas fall outside the very narrow scope and time period allowed for discovery. See Agapito v. AHDS Bagel, LLC, No. 16-CV-8170, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83403, at *4 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (Oetken, J,) (granting plaintiffs’ motion to quash subpoenas

for bank records and stating that timeliness forms an independent basis to grant a motion to quash, “regardless of whether Plaintiffs would have standing to challenge the subpoenas if they had been issued in a timely manner”); In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-254, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63189, at *372-74 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2016) (Furman, J.) (quashing untimely subpoena for cellphone records). Accordingly, the Court hereby quashes Defendants’ subpoenas. Dated: New York, New York April 20, 2020 /s/ Kimba M. Wood KIMBA M. WOOD United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: __________________ --------------------------------------------------------X DATE FILED: 4/20/20 PATSY’S BRAND, INC.,

Plaintiff, v. 99-CV-10175 (KMW) I.O.B. REALTY, INC., PATSY’S INC., FRANK ORDER BRIJA, JOHN BRECEVICH, and NICK TSOULOS,

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------X KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs have moved on an emergency basis to quash subpoenas directed to non-party AT&T. (ECF No. 286.) Because the limited discovery period in this matter is closed, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ request that the Court award attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing of this motion, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court defers ruling on this application. The Court will address all issues related to attorneys’ fees after rendering a decision on the underlying contempt allegations. During a hearing in this matter on October 30, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request to propound a small number of interrogatories and discovery requests. (Tr. 104:19-25; ECF No. 238.) The Court ordered Defendants to respond on an expedited basis, because the requests related to “ground that everyone has plowed over very carefully.” (Tr. 107:1-2.) On December 3, 2019, the Court directed Defendants to take certain steps to cure deficiencies in the discovery produced pursuant to the Court’s October 30, 2019 Order. (ECF No. 243.) No other discovery has occurred, and none is warranted. This matter is paused mid- hearing in a post-judgment contempt posture. The issues facing the Court are the subject of extensive written direct testimony and, were it not for unforeseen delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court would have already received all evidence necessary for their resolution. Defendants’ pending subpoenas fall outside the very narrow scope and time period allowed for discovery. See Agapito v. AHDS Bagel, LLC, No. 16-CV-8170, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83403, at *4 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018) (Oetken, J,) (granting plaintiffs’ motion to quash subpoenas

for bank records and stating that timeliness forms an independent basis to grant a motion to quash, “regardless of whether Plaintiffs would have standing to challenge the subpoenas if they had been issued in a timely manner”); In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-254, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63189, at *372-74 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2016) (Furman, J.) (quashing untimely subpoena for cellphone records). Accordingly, the Court hereby quashes Defendants’ subpoenas. Dated: New York, New York April 20, 2020 /s/ Kimba M. Wood KIMBA M. WOOD United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Patsy's Brand, Inc. v. I.O.B. Realty, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patsys-brand-inc-v-iob-realty-inc-nysd-2020.