Bhagat v. Shah

Filing 99

ORDER denying 55 Motion to Quash. Defendant moved to quash certain subpoenas (ECF 55), which motion Plaintiff opposed (ECF 88, 89); Defendant filed reply papers in further support (ECF 91). I held a conference on January 21, 2025 to discuss t his motion and other discovery issues. After the conference, I issued an order that, among other things, denied the motion to quash in certain respects and required supplemental briefing on whether the subpoenas should be quashed to the extent they sought communications between Defendant and third parties. (ECF 92). The parties provided the requested supplemental briefing (ECF 96, 97), which I have carefully reviewed. Plaintiff is correct that there is no bar to the production by the subpoen aed parties of communications between Defendant and third pares if Plaintiff obtains the consent of those third parties. Defendants motion to quash is therefore denied in its entirety. Plaintiff's request that I direct Defendant to provide co nsent for the disclosure of the subpoenaed communications is premature, given that Defendant has not yet made her document production to Plaintiff. If that production turns out to be deficient and Plaintiff has not by that time otherwise obtained p roduction of the subpoenaed communications, I will entertain at that time a renewed request to require Defendant to consent to the disclosure. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate ECF 55. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky on 1/27/2025) (jca)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VIRAL BHAGAT, Plain??, 24cv01424 (VEC) (RFT) ORDER -againstANUJA SHARAD SHAH, Defendant. ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, United States Magistrate Judge: Defendant moved to quash certain subpoenas (ECF 55), which mo?on Plain?? opposed (ECF 88, 89); Defendant ?led reply papers in further support (ECF 91). I held a conference on January 21, 2025 to discuss this mo?on and other discovery issues. A?er the conference, I issued an order that, among other things, denied the mo?on to quash in certain respects and required supplemental brie?ng on whether the subpoenas should be quashed to the extent they sought communica?ons between Defendant and third par?es. (ECF 92). The par?es provided the requested supplemental brie?ng (ECF 96, 97), which I have carefully reviewed. Plain?? is correct that there is no bar to the produc?on by the subpoenaed par?es of communica?ons between Defendant and third par?es if Plain?? obtains the consent of those third par?es. Defendant’s mo?on to quash is therefore denied in its en?rety. Plain??’s request that I direct Defendant to provide consent for the disclosure of the subpoenaed communica?ons is premature, given that Defendant has not yet made her document produc?on to Plain??. If that produc?on turns out to be de?cient and Plain?? has not by that ?me otherwise obtained produc?on of the subpoenaed communica?ons, I will entertain at that ?me a renewed request to require Defendant to consent to the disclosure. The Clerk of Court is respec?ully requested to terminate ECF 55. DATED: January 27, 2025 New York, NY

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?