Itochu International, Inc. v. Devon Robotics, LLC
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143738
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- ITOCHU issued subpoenas to nine banks seeking assets information for Devon and related parties to enforce a judgment.
- Devon moves to quash or modify subpoenas on grounds: targeting Nance DiRocco’s records, retirement accounts, and excessive/duplicative requests.
- ITOCHU seeks information on nonparty asset records to locate concealed assets and assess transfer legitimacy.
- Devon prosecutes that some assets may be exempt from execution and that some requests are overly broad.
- Court ultimately denies Devon’s motion to quash and allows post-judgment discovery to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to quash third-party subpoenas | ITOCHU asserts Devon has standing due to personal rights in assets | Devon argues lack of standing to challenge third-party subpoenas | Devon has standing to challenge the subpoenas |
| Nance DiRocco assets relevancy | DiRocco assets may relate to transfers from Devon | Requests exceed scope limiting assets to entirety estates | Requests relating to DiRocco assets are relevant and not barred by the 2014 order |
| Retirement accounts and execution | Discovery can reveal assets subject to execution or transfers to conceal assets | Some accounts may be exempt from execution | Discovery on retirement accounts is allowed; execution issues reserved for later |
| Duplicative or excessive requests | Subpoenas aid comprehensive asset discovery and forensic review | Requests are overly broad and duplicative of prior productions | Subpoenas not overly burdensome; discovery remains proper post-judgment |
| Cost shifting of discovery | Costs should not be borne by Devon | Costs allocation depends on court determination later | Cost allocation premature; not decided yet |
Key Cases Cited
- First Sealord Sur. v. Durkin & Devries Ins. Agency, 918 F.Supp.2d 362 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (discovery discretion and balancing factors; relevance, need, confidentiality, harm)
- Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987) (discretion in discovery and standard of review)
- Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1999) (broad scope of discovery with limits for protection)
- Caisson Corp. v. Cnty. W. Bldg. Corp., 62 F.R.D. 331 (E.D. Pa. 1974) (allowance of broad inquiry to uncover concealed assets; limits apply)
- In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., 300 F.R.D. 234 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (discovery limits and post-judgment scope; balance factors)