22 Misc. 353
S.D.N.Y.2023Background
- Zhongtie Dacheng (plaintiff in underlying action) sought recognition/enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in the C.D. Cal.; Liang Xiuhong is one of the judgment debtors named in that action.
- Zhongtie served a subpoena on JPMorgan Chase seeking all documents for accounts “in the name of or under the signatory authority of the judgment debtors,” which included accounts Liang had signatory authority over.
- Liang had been an authorized signatory on a Chase account held by Silverstone Holding Group, LLC, a non-party to the underlying action.
- Chase notified Silverstone of the subpoena; Silverstone moved in the S.D.N.Y. (where compliance would be required) to quash the subpoena and for a protective order.
- The court found Silverstone had standing based on its privacy interest in banking records, concluded the records were not relevant to the limited grounds to refuse recognition of the foreign award, and quashed the subpoena.
- The court ordered any Chase-produced materials destroyed but denied Silverstone’s request for attorneys’ fees because Silverstone was not the party “subject to” the subpoena under Rule 45(d)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Silverstone's Argument | Zhongtie's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge subpoena served on a nonparty bank | Silverstone has a privacy interest in its banking records and thus standing to quash | Subpoena does not seek Silverstone’s records expressly, so Silverstone lacks standing | Silverstone has standing: subpoenas for records of accounts where a party was signatory implicate that party’s privacy interest |
| Relevance / privacy balancing for nonparty bank records | Records are unrelated to recognition of the foreign arbitration award and hence irrelevant; privacy outweighs any probative value | Subpoena seeks enforcement-related discovery; includes carveout for privileged material | The records have no demonstrated probative value for the limited recognition defenses and Silverstone’s privacy interest outweighs the relevance; subpoena quashed |
| Sanctions / attorneys’ fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1) | Silverstone seeks fees for costs defending against the subpoena | Zhongtie opposed fee request (no substantive argument) | Denied: Rule 45(d)(1) sanctions apply to the person “subject to” the subpoena (Chase), not to a nonrecipient merely affected by it |
Key Cases Cited
- Langford v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.2d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975) (generally only subpoena recipients have standing to object absent a claimed privilege)
- Nova Prods., Inc. v. Kisma Video, Inc., 220 F.R.D. 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (nonparty may have standing to quash to protect a personal privilege or right)
- In re Fitch Inc., 330 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2003) (motions to quash subpoenas are committed to the district court's discretion)
- Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169 F.R.D. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (movant bears burden of persuasion on a motion to quash)
- Hughes v. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., 327 F.R.D. 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (subpoena recipients may challenge production under Rule 26(b)(1) relevance principles)