SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0602-20

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ex. rel.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, and MEDICAL 

INVESTIGATION GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

HARSHAD PATEL, AP SURGERY

CENTER, L.L.C., and AP 

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________

Submitted November 8, 2021 – Decided November 22, 2021

Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-0954-16.

Ehrlich, Petriello, Gudin, Plaza & Reed, attorneys for 

appellants (John Petriello, on the brief).

Kennedy Vuernick, LLC, attorneys for respondents

(Richard E. Vuernick, of counsel; John Kennedy, of 

counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0602-20

PER CURIAM

Defendants Harshad Patel, AP Surgery Center, LLC, and AP Diagnostic 

Imaging, Inc. appeal from an October 21, 2020 order denying their motion to 

quash a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum directed to a non-party,

Devika Patel.1 We affirm. 

The factual background preceding the issuance of the post-judgment 

subpoena by plaintiffs Allstate Insurance Company and Medical Investigation 

Group, Inc. is set forth in our prior decision, affirming entry of a judgment based 

on an enforceable settlement among the parties. See State ex rel. Allstate Ins. 

Co. v. Patel, No. A-1437-18 (App. Div. Dec. 5, 2019), certif. denied, 241 N.J. 

201 (2020). Defendants paid the judgment except for the sum of $27,195.76,

2

representing an award of attorney's fees to plaintiffs.

In an effort to collect the balance of the judgment, plaintiffs served a 

subpoena on Devika Patel. Plaintiffs believe defendant Harshad Patel secreted 

funds by transferring assets to his wife to avoid paying the judgment. Plaintiffs 

1

 Devika Patel is the wife of defendant Harshad Patel. 

2

 Plaintiffs contends defendants still owe $27,980.70 under the judgments. The 

record lacks information explaining this discrepancy. 
3

A-0602-20

formed this belief based on Devika Patel's certification opposing plaintiffs' 

motion to turnover funds levied upon a joint bank account. In her certification, 

Devika Patel averred "[t]he funds which were levied upon came from the sale of 

property. The property was in my name, and not in the name of Harshad. These

monies belong to me, and not to Harshad." Plaintiffs' subpoena sought 

information about the source of the funds which Devika Patel claimed belonged 

solely to her, as well as testimony and documents pertaining to any properties 

she bought and sold. 

Defendants moved to quash the subpoena. In a decision placed on the 

record on October 20, 2020, the judge denied defendants' motion. The judge 

found Devika Patel's certification "lack[ed] any factual support." He also 

referred to other cases, one pending in federal district court and one in state 

court in Union County, in which Devika Patel invoked her Fifth Amendment 

right against self-incrimination and declined to give sworn testimony regarding 

various assets. In reviewing the history of the other legal actions, the judge 

noted a significant relationship between Harshad Patel and Devika Patel with 

respect to the financial assets. Based on that information, the judge concluded, 

"[t]he subpoena's requests are reasonable, seek relevant documents and . . . fall 

within the ambit of the broad parameters of permissible discovery under New 
4

A-0602-20

Jersey [l]aw." He determined the "[d]iscovery in this matter is relevant" because 

"it is clear there's a significant relationship" between Harshad Patel, Devika 

Patel, and the transfer of assets and "that relationship needs to be explored." 

On appeal, defendants assert the motion judge erred in denying the motion 

to quash the subpoena.3 We disagree.

A trial court "may quash or modify [a] subpoena or notice if compliance

would be unreasonable or oppressive . . . ." R. 1:9-2. We review a trial judge's 

decision on a motion to quash a subpoena for abuse of discretion. In re 

Subpoena Duce Tecum, 214 N.J. 147, 162 (2013).

Having reviewed the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the 

judge's denial of defendants' motion to quash the subpoena. The judge found 

the requested information to be relevant. Additionally, there was a valid 

judgment against defendants as affirmed by this court on appeal. Under Rule

4:59-1(f), "in aid of a judgment or execution, the judgment creditor . . . may 

examine any person, including the judgment debtor, by proceeding as provided 

by these rules for the taking of depositions . . . ." The judge also noted there 

are several lawsuits seeking information from Devika Patel related to assets her 

3

 On appeal, defendants cited only to the court rule governing subpoenas and 

provided no case law in support of their argument. 
5

A-0602-20

husband, Harshad Patel, transferred to her to avoid paying judgments entered 

against him. On this record, there is no indication the subpoena is oppressive or 

unreasonable, and the judge's denial of the motion to quash the subpoena was 

not an abuse of discretion. 

Affirmed.