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

Filing 290

ORDER granting 286 Letter Motion for Discovery. Accordingly, the Court hereby quashes Defendants' subpoenas. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 4/20/2020) (js)

Case 1:99-cv-10175-KMW Document 290 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------X
PATSY’S BRAND, INC.,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: __________________
DATE FILED: 4/20/20

Plaintiff,
v.
I.O.B. REALTY, INC., PATSY’S INC., FRANK
BRIJA, JOHN BRECEVICH, and NICK
TSOULOS,

99-CV-10175 (KMW)
ORDER

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 midhearing 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

1

Case 1:99-cv-10175-KMW Document 290 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2

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

2