Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

In re Madison Williams & Co., LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York

January 7, 2014, Decided

Case No. 11-15896, Chapter 7

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS

MARTIN GLENN

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. ("KeyBanc"), and Sylvia Barnes ("Barnes," and together with KeyBanc, the "Witnesses") move to quash non-party subpoenas (the "KeyBanc Subpoena" and the "Barnes Subpoena," collectively the "Subpoenas") served by Gregory Messer, the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Messer" or the "Trustee") of the estate of Madison Williams and Company, LLC ("Madison Williams" or the "Debtor") and further move for a protective order prohibiting the Trustee from enforcing the Subpoenas (the "Motion," ECF Doc. # 135-1). The Subpoenas seek documents and testimony from the Witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004. Counsel for the Trustee filed a response to the Motion (the "Response," ECF  [*2] Doc. # 161). The Court heard argument on January 6, 2014.

The Motion to quash the Subpoenas is granted because the Subpoenas were improperly served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 since the Subpoenas were issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and the Witnesses are both located in Houston, Texas. The Motion is denied, however, to the extent it seeks a protective order with respect to the scope of the discovery sought from the Witnesses as part of the Rule 2004 examination. The scope of the information sought is properly within the scope of permissible inquiry by the Chapter 7 Trustee in investigating the acts, conduct, or property of the Debtor. Therefore, while the Court will enter an order quashing the subpoena—and the court that issues any new subpoenas will have to consider any new motion to quash1—the Court denies the Motion insofar as it seeks a protective order concerning the scope of the requested examination. The scope of the Rule 2004 examination that the Trustee seeks to undertake is proper.

I. BACKGROUND

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2014 Bankr. LEXIS 50 *; 2014 WL 56070

In re: MADISON WILLIAMS and COMPANY, LLC, Debtor.

Notice: NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CORE TERMS

Subpoenas, Witnesses, documents, undue burden, deals, deposition, protective order, good cause, confidential, motion to quash, trade secret, discovery

Civil Procedure, Discovery & Disclosure, Discovery, Subpoenas, Bankruptcy Law, Bankruptcy, Case Administration, Examinations of Debtors