Peoples National Bank, N.A. v. Mehlman et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion to quash the discovery subpoenas noted above is DENIED. (Doc. No. 51.) At Defendants request, the parties shall confer and attempt to reach an agreement on a protective order to pr otect confidential information. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Defendants may submit a proposed protective order, on or before December 15, 2015, for the Courts consideration. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/09/2015. (KCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK, N.A.,
DEBRA J. MEHLMAN, et al.,
Case No. 4:15CV00996 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This fraud action is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to quash subpoenas
for the production of documents, served on two banks1 by Plaintiff People’s National
Bank, N.A. The lawsuit arises out of two loans made by Plaintiff People’s National
Bank, N.A., in 2007 and in 2008, in the total amount of approximately $3.6 million to
Defendant Mark S. Mehlman Realty Inc. (“MSM”); both loans were guaranteed by
Defendant Mark Mehlman. After Plaintiff obtained a judgment in state court against
these two Defendants for approximately $1.3 million for money owed on the loans,
Plaintiff filed the present action against Mark Mehlman; MSM; Debra Mehlman,
individually and as trustee of her trust; Mehlman Homes Realty, LLC; Mark S. Mehlman
Homes, LLC; and Mark Mehlman’s sons Scott Mehlman and Blair Mehlman. Plaintiff
alleges in Count I against Mark Mehlman that Mark Mehlman fraudulently induced
The subpoenas were served on three banks, but one has already complied, and so the
motion to quash is moot as to that subpoena.
Plaintiff to extend the loans, and in Counts II through VII that all Defendants engaged in
fraudulent transfers to prevent Plaintiff from collecting the $1.3 million judgment.
The subpoenas at issue seek Defendants’ account statements from 2007 to the
present; financial statements, now limited to from 2007 to the present; and loan
documents (with respect to one bank). Defendants complain that the subpoenas are
overbroad and seek information not relevant to the present lawsuit.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(3)(A) provides that, on timely motion, a court
must quash or modify a subpoena that requires the production of privileged or other
protected matter, or subjects a person to undue burden. Here, the Court agrees with
Plaintiff that the subpoenas seek relevant, non-privileged information. The Court notes
that the banks have not objected to the breadth of the subpoenas or that compliance
would be burdensome.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to quash the discovery
subpoenas noted above is DENIED. (Doc. No. 51.) At Defendants’ request, the parties
shall confer and attempt to reach an agreement on a protective order to protect
confidential information. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Defendants
may submit a proposed protective order, on or before December 15, 2015, for the
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of December, 2015.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?