On September 18, 2023 a
ORDER - OTHER (NON-MOTION)
was filed
involving a dispute between
Jordan Bardach,
and
Anna Martynova,
Aron Wolocowitz,
Jennifer Milosavljevic,
Rentability, Inc.,
Yoel Hershkowitch,
for Commercial - Other - Commercial Division (N-PCL 618)
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
INDEX NO. 159110/2023
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/31/2023 08:02 PM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/31/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY: COMMERCIAL DIVISION
PRESENT: HON.J ENNIFER G. SCHECTER PART 54
J sti ice
x
J ORDAN BARDACH, INDEX NO. 159110/2023
Petitioner,
Vv ORDER
ANNA MARTY NOVA, J ENNIFER MILOSAVLJ EVIC, YOEL
HERSHKOWITCH, ARON WOLOCOWITZ, RENTABILITY,
INC.
Respondents.
x
Respondents' subpoena is quashed. Even overlooking that leave to take discovery
was not sought pursuant to CPLR 408 (and, to be sure, seeking a party's ESI is done
by discovery demand and not a subpoena, and the court would never permit a party
to obtain and introduce a party's ESI at trial when it was not sought during fact
discovery), the deadline to file evidence has passed (Dkt. 63). If respondents wanted
to introduce documents only obtainable by subpoena, they should have sought to
obtain them earlier.
Itis SO ORDERED.
29231931.288231)SCHEC ( 34333800FF car:
DATE: 10/31/2023 J ENNIFER G. SCHECTER,J SC
OTHER ORDER — NON-MOTION
lof 1 Page
1 of 1
Document Filed Date
October 31, 2023
Case Filing Date
September 18, 2023
Category
Commercial - Other - Commercial Division (N-PCL 618)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
INDEX NO. 159110/2023 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/31/2023 08:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 116 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/31/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PRESENT: HON.J ENNIFER G. SCHECTER PART 54 J sti ice x J ORDAN BARDACH, INDEX NO. 159110/2023 Petitioner, Vv ORDER ANNA MARTY NOVA, J ENNIFER MILOSAVLJ EVIC, YOEL HERSHKOWITCH, ARON WOLOCOWITZ, RENTABILITY, INC. Respondents. x Respondents' subpoena is quashed. Even overlooking that leave to take discovery was not sought pursuant to CPLR 408 (and, to be sure, seeking a party's ESI is done by discovery demand and not a subpoena, and the court would never permit a party to obtain and introduce a party's ESI at trial when it was not sought during fact discovery), the deadline to file evidence has passed (Dkt. 63). If respondents wanted to introduce documents only obtainable by subpoena, they should have sought to obtain them earlier. Itis SO ORDERED. 29231931.288231)SCHEC ( 34333800FF car: DATE: 10/31/2023 J ENNIFER G. SCHECTER,J SC OTHER ORDER — NON-MOTION lof 1 Page 1 of 1