AMMEX CORPORATION v. Buckwold, 3:24-cv-04206

AMMEX Corporation distributes disposable gloves through authorized sellers and contractually restricts them from selling to unauthorized resellers.
AMMEX suspects Yudi (a/k/a Yehuda) Buckwold to be an unauthorized reseller and initiated a lawsuit in the Western District of Washington to identify authorized sellers violating these restrictions.
With court approval, AMMEX served a subpoena on Buckwold in New Jersey, seeking documents related to his supply chain and sales activity of AMMEX products from June 2019 to the present.
Buckwold failed to respond to the subpoena or subsequent follow-up correspondence; he did email AMMEX expressing confusion and alleging a scam.
AMMEX moved in the District of New Jersey to compel Buckwold’s compliance with the subpoena, and further sought an order to show cause for contempt and sanctions against him.
The court determined it had proper jurisdiction, and AMMEX's subpoena was relevant, narrowly tailored, and not unduly burdensome.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to compel	Court is proper because documents and respondent are in NJ	No formal legal argument; expressed confusion	Court has jurisdiction as discovery is to be produced in the District
Compliance with subpoena	Subpoena seeks relevant, narrowly tailored information	Alleged he does not sell gloves; confusion	Motion to compel granted
Entitlement to order to show cause for contempt	Buckwold failed to comply without excuse; should show cause	Expressed confusion, alleged scam	Denied without prejudice due to incomplete record
Sanctions against Buckwold	Sought costs for compelling compliance	No direct response	Denied without prejudice

Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311 (3d Cir. 1995) (before finding contempt, court must provide due process with notice and a hearing)
McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 221 F.R.D. 423 (D.N.J. 2004) (failure to timely object to a subpoena can constitute a waiver of objections)