1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re: )

)

MIN SIK KANG ) Case No. 10-18839-BFK

MAN SUN KANG, ) Chapter 11

Debtors. )

___________________________________ )

)

RAYMOND A. YANCEY, ) Adversary Proceeding

) No. 16-01005-BFK

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

MIN SIK KANG, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER DENYING CONSENT MOTION

TO AUTHORIZE SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA

ON SUNTRUST BANK 

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Consent Motion to Authorize Service of 

a Subpoena on SunTrust Bank. Docket No. 388. For the reasons stated below, the Consent 

Motion will be denied. 

The Complaint in this adversary proceeding was filed on January 11, 2016, almost two 

years ago. The initial discovery cutoff was May 11, 2016. Docket No. 5, ¶ 4(c) (providing for a 

discovery cutoff of 120 days from the issuance of the Summonses). The discovery cutoff was 

extended five times, at the requests of the parties. Docket Nos. 43, 55, 74, 226, 256. The fifth 

extension allowed discovery to be completed by August 31, 2017. Docket No. 256, ¶ 2. Even 

after the fifth extension, the Court granted a limited extension for the return of documents from 

certain parties, including SunTrust Bank, through September 29, 2017. Docket No. 314. 

Case 16-01005-BFK Doc 390 Filed 12/19/17 Entered 12/19/17 17:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
2

The Plaintiff has represented to the Court that it served SunTrust Bank with a subpoena 

duces tecum on November 21, 2016. Docket No. 310, at 2. The date for return of the SunTrust 

documents was December 9, 2016. Id.

1 The Plaintiff now argues that the documents produced by 

SunTrust Bank reveal the issuance of certain large-amount cashier’s checks from the Five Days 

and G-Mart-related entities’ bank accounts. Motion, Docket No. 388, at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel, 

though, certainly could have learned of these cashier’s checks and could have conducted 

additional discovery into the disposition of the proceeds during the nine months that elapsed

between the return date of the SunTrust Bank subpoena of December 9, 2016 (or even a month 

or two thereafter to allow time for SunTrust to complete its production), and the ultimate 

discovery cutoff for these records of September 29, 2017. 

The Court finds that there has been an insufficient showing for what would constitute a 

seventh extension of the discovery cutoff for the SunTrust Bank records. 

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. The Consent Motion to Authorize Service of a Subpoena on SunTrust Bank is 

denied. 

2. The Clerk will mail copies of this Order, or will provide cm-ecf notice of its 

entry, to the parties below. 

Date: _____________________ ________________________________

Brian F. Kenney

Alexandria, Virginia United States Bankruptcy Judge

Copies to:

 

1 It isn’t clear to the Court why the Plaintiff waited until November 2016, more than ten months after the Complaint 

was filed, to serve SunTrust with a subpoena duces tecum, though the Court will allow for some time for the 

Defendants to have revealed that they or their business entities had bank accounts at SunTrust. 

Dec 19 2017 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

Entered on Docket:Dec 19 2017

Case 16-01005-BFK Doc 390 Filed 12/19/17 Entered 12/19/17 17:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
3

Jeffrey L. Tarkenton, Esquire

1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W. 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20036

Counsel for the Plaintiff Raymond Yancey

James A. Vidmar, Esquire

10211 Wincopin Circle, Suite 500 

Columbia, MD 21044

Counsel for Defendants Min Sik Kang and Man Sun Kang (“The Debtors”)

Barry Coburn, Esquire

1710 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. 

Second Floor 

Washington, DC 20036

Counsel for Bop Sik Kang, Young Nam Kang, Sue Kang Kim, Steve Kim (“The Non-Debtor 

Defendants”)

Case 16-01005-BFK Doc 390 Filed 12/19/17 Entered 12/19/17 17:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3