Libaire v. Kaplan, 760 F. Supp. 2d 288

Libaire and Stein were sanctioned under the PSLRA for a frivolous securities action, with a judgment of $94,845.45 against them.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's sanctions and summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Defendants issued a post-judgment subpoena to Stein on June 21, 2010 seeking documents and deposition—production due July 28, 2010.
Judgment debtors sought leave to move to quash the subpoena; the court granted permission to file the motion to quash.
The motion to quash argued lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the subpoena was overly broad, burdensome, and sought privileged information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena post-judgment.	Libaire contends no subject matter jurisdiction to enforce.	Kaplan asserts ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the decree.	Court has jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena.
Whether the subpoena is overly broad or unduly burdensome.	Subpoena seeks twenty broad categories of documents and is burdensome.	Rule 69 permits wide post-judgment discovery; requests are tailored and relevant.	Subpoena not overly broad or unduly burdensome.
Whether the subpoena seeks confidential or privileged information improperly.	Requests include privileged information and tax returns.	Tax returns are relevant; privilege concerns are not clearly shown; some non-privileged items relate to clients’ fees.	Tax returns ordered; privilege concerns not established.

Dulce v. Dulce, 233 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2000) (ancillary jurisdiction to enforce judgments)
United States v. Peacock, 516 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1996) (ancillary enforcement of decrees)
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1995) (dismissal or final adjudication related to res judicata)
United States v. Uccio, 940 F.2d 753 (2d Cir. 1991) (law-of-the-case principle governs subsequent proceedings)