GEM Yield Bahamas Limited v. Mullen Technologies, Inc.
1:24-cv-01120
S.D.N.Y.Apr 25, 2025Background
- GEM obtained a final judgment against Mullen, confirming an arbitral award, with payment due by May 7, 2025.
- Mullen has not complied with payment or escrow orders, raising concerns that it is attempting to become judgment proof.
- GEM served post-judgment discovery requests and noticed depositions (including 30(b)(6) depositions) and subpoenas on two Mullen officers.
- Mullen moved for a pre-motion conference to quash or modify the deposition notices/subpoenas, citing location and procedural objections.
- The dispute centers on the location, scope, and validity of the noted depositions and subpoenas in the context of post-judgment discovery to aid execution of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (GEM) | Defendant's Argument (Mullen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper location for 30(b)(6) depositions | New York is proper; all proceedings have occurred there; parties’ counsel is based there | Should be in principal place of business (California) | Grant: Must proceed in California |
| Scope/particularity of 30(b)(6) deposition topics | Topics are proper, standard, and relevant for post-judgment discovery | Topics not described with reasonable particularity | Deny: Topics are sufficiently specific |
| Tendering of witness fees for subpoenas | Fees were tendered via counsel | Fees not properly tendered | Deny: Fees were properly tendered |
| Duplicative testimony from subpoenas | Both corporate reps and officers' testimony is needed given concern over hidden assets | Individual officer testimony is duplicative | Deny: Officer testimony is proper |
| Undue burden from deposition timing | Will consider alternative dates if proposed | Dates as noticed are burdensome | Parties must confer on dates |
Key Cases Cited
- SEC v. Collector's Coffee Inc., 19 Civ. 4355 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (court discretion on deposition location and post-judgment discovery)
- Sugarhill Records Ltd. v. Motown Record Corp., 105 F.R.D. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (corporate depositions may be held where the action is pending, at court’s discretion)
(Additional cases discussed—such as Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc. v. Sony Theatre Mgmt.—do not have reporter citations or are not included per instructions.)