Lacy Family, LLLP v. Heller et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Quash; denying 28 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 3/3/16. (Ladd-Smith, I.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LACY FAMILY, LLLP,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
DONALD HELLER and
GINGER HELLER,
Defendants.

3:14-cv-01719-WWE

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO QUASH
Defendants Donald and Ginger Heller have moved to quash subpoenas issued to Bank of
America and Capital One by plaintiff Lacy Family, LLLP. For the following reasons,
defendants’ motions to quash will be denied.
Plaintiff is a judgment creditor of defendant Donald Heller in the amount of
$2,239,852.01. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have fraudulently transferred hundreds of
thousands of dollars in assets in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-552. Plaintiff’s subpoenas
request production of records concerning the financial transactions between defendants from
April 28, 2008, to the present. Plaintiff has submitted evidence in the form of a Bank of America
statement demonstrating that on November 17, 2008, Donald transferred $100,000 to his wife
Ginger.
DISCUSSION
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ subpoenas are overly burdensome and duplicative.
The requests place no burden or expense on defendants. Other than labeling the
production requests as “onerous,” defendants do not explain how the subpoenas would be overly
burdensome for the banks. The Court is not persuaded that production of several years of
account information involving a husband and wife would be onerous for the banks, as banks are
in the business of keeping and producing such records.
Defendants submit that the information at issue should be requested directly from
defendants before such information is requested of the banks. They contend, alternatively, that
all relevant information has already been provided by them. Duplicative production is shunned
primarily because it is burdensome and costly without benefit. Here, where defendants would
incur no burden or cost of production, plaintiff should not be prevented access to the best
evidence of the alleged financial transactions at issue. Nor should plaintiff be forced to take
defendants’ word that no further records exist, or, alternatively, that defendants will provide such
records upon request.
Accurate banking records cannot be obtained from some other source that is “more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” than the banks themselves. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(i). Considering the importance of this discovery in resolving the issues of this case
(allegedly fraudulent transfers), the Court finds that the burden and expense of the proposed
discovery does not outweigh its likely benefit. See Fed. R. Cip. P. 26(b)(1).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions to quash [Docs. # 27, 28] are DENIED.
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2016, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/Warren W. Eginton
WARREN W. EGINTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE