Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., 1:22-cv-01761

Petitioners (Telecom Business Solution, LATAM Towers, AMLQ) and respondents (Terra Towers Corp., TBS Management S.A., DT Holdings, Inc.) are parties to a 2015 shareholders agreement; Petitioners initiated arbitration in 2021 and obtained multiple partial awards, including a later 5th partial final award exceeding $300 million.
Petitioners served information subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum on Terra, TBS, and DTH on April 11, 2025 seeking asset/account information for collection of the arbitration awards.
Respondents delayed responding; the Court issued a June 18, 2025 order directing immediate full responses to the subpoenas.
Petitioners moved for civil contempt on June 25, 2025; respondents served their subpoena responses on June 26, 2025.
The Court held that Terra and TBS waived any untimely objections and must produce information withheld on that basis but are not in contempt; DTH was found in contempt and ordered to pay coercive fines ($500/day, escalating to $1,000/day after 14 days) and to file recurring compliance affidavits until purged.
The Court declined to hold Jorge Hernandez in contempt because he was not individually served and the motion did not particularize misconduct against him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondents are in civil contempt for failing to comply with subpoenas and the June 18 Order	Respondents failed to comply; responses were incomplete, evasive, or false and warrant coercive sanctions	Respondents served responses after motion and dispute scope/effort to comply	Terra/TBS: not in contempt but must produce documents withheld based on untimely objections. DTH: in contempt and subject to fines and ongoing affidavits.
Effect of untimely objections to subpoenas	Objections raised in responses were waived and cannot justify withholding documents	Objections reflect substantive grounds for withholding	Court: objections raised for first time were waived; respondents may not withhold on that basis and must produce withheld information.
Whether Rule 11 requires counsel to sign and certify subpoena responses	Petitioners: federal Rule 11 requires counsel signature/certification for subpoena responses	Respondents: Rule 11 applies to filings, not discovery responses	Court: Rule 11 does not apply to discovery responses; no basis to find contempt for lack of counsel signature.
Whether Jorge Hernandez can be held in contempt based on alleged control of respondents	Petitioners: Hernandez controls parties and should be sanctioned for their noncompliance	Respondents: Hernandez not served; motion did not particularize misconduct against him	Court: Cannot sanction Hernandez—motion failed to particularize and he was not served individually.

Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 384 F. Supp. 3d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (standards for civil contempt and proof required)
Hess v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 846 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1988) (clarifying contempt standard and what makes an order clear and unambiguous)