Valentine v. Sperry Tents Hamptons
2:24-cv-03347
E.D.N.YJun 17, 2025Background
- The case involves a motion by VKV (former counsel for Plaintiff Diane Valentine) seeking reconsideration of a prior order denying Plaintiff's motion to quash a non-party subpoena served on VKV by Defendant Sperry Tents Hamptons.
- Plaintiff and VKV were served with notice and a copy of the non-party subpoena in May 2025; Plaintiff promptly moved to quash, which the court denied.
- VKV did not move to quash within the 14-day deadline under Rule 45 but instead sought reconsideration after Plaintiff’s motion was denied.
- VKV argued that it was denied due process and that the prior order should be modified or reconsidered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.
- The court reviewed whether VKV’s motion was timely, complied with procedural rules, and warranted reconsideration under relevant legal standards.
- The court ultimately denied VKV’s motion and ordered compliance with the subpoena by July 1, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of VKV’s Motion to Quash | (No separate argument; VKV argued on its own behalf.) | VKV’s motion was untimely under Rule 45, as it was filed after the deadline and return date. | VKV’s motion is untimely; motions to quash must be filed before the return date or within 14 days. |
| Due Process and Opportunity to be Heard | VKV claimed it was not given an opportunity to be heard on the original motion, violating due process. | Defendant noted all proper notices and service were provided as per rules; VKV had the opportunity to object but did not. | No due process violation; VKV was served, had opportunity, and no authority supports VKV’s position. |
| Grounds for Reconsideration under Rule 60 | VKV argued for reconsideration due to alleged error and failure to consider new arguments. | Defendant asserted that no new evidence or law was presented, and reconsideration standards were not met. | No basis for reconsideration; arguments already raised and rejected; no new law or facts. |
| Cost-Shifting for Subpoena Compliance | VKV requested Defendant bear the costs if required to comply with the subpoena. | Defendant argued costs should not shift absent significant expense by VKV. | Cost-shifting denied; VKV did not demonstrate significant burden from compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old issues or present new arguments)
- Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (reconsideration is permitted only for specific bases, such as change in law or new evidence)
- Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2021) (lists grounds for reconsideration: change in law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice)