1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ETHICON, 

INC., ETHICON US, LLC, and 

JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH 

CARE SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ADVANCED INVENTORY 

MANAGEMENT, INC. D/B/A 

ESUTURES.COM, ANTHONY 

IADEROSA JR., JASON EINHORN, 

MIKE PHIPPS, and MUDASSAR SHAH,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 20-cv-3471

Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.

DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

CUMMINGS’S ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH UNTIL THE 

DISTRICT COURT RESOLVES DEFENDANTS’ SOON TO BE FILED OBJECTION

Defendants Advanced Inventory Management, Inc. d/b/a eSutures.com (“AIM”) and

Anthony Iaderosa, Jr. (together, “Defendants”) respectfully move this Court on an emergency 

basis to enter a stay of Magistrate Judge Cummings’ August 20, 2020 Order denying 

Defendants’ Amended and Supplemental Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Third Party Subpoenas 

(ECF Nos. 212, 213) until the District Court rules on Defendants’ soon to be filed objection to 

Magistrate Judge Cummings’ Order, which Defendants anticipate filing no later than 

Wednesday, August 26, 2020.

1 In further support thereof, Defendants state as follows:

1. Plaintiffs have issued and served third party subpoenas in this matter on Lakeside 

Bank, CitiMortgage Inc., and J.P. Morgan Chase seeking information relating to bank accounts

 1 Because of the substantial briefing due in this matter on Monday, August 24, 2020, Defendants’ counsel anticipate

needing until Wednesday to prepare and file the objection.

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 214 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:8240
2

where any of the Defendants are signatories on the accounts. However, many of the accounts 

themselves are for third party corporate entities that have nothing to do with selling medical 

devices. (See generally ECF No. 130) (listing the bank accounts of numerous third-party entities 

that have no role in the allegations of this lawsuit, including The Liliana Grace Iaderosa Trust 

No. 100, 315 S. Jefferson LLC, and 127 Virginia Series LLC). Moreover, none of these entities 

have been accused by Plaintiffs of selling counterfeit Ethicon Products, which is what this case is 

about. Therefore, Plaintiffs have no right to obtain this highly sensitive financial information. 

2. As a result, on June 26, 2020, Defendants filed their Amended and Supplemented 

Motion to Quash the Subpoenas (“Motion to Quash”).

2 (See ECF No. 69.) 

3. Defendants’ Motion to Quash argued, essentially, that the subpoenas sought 

irrelevant documents relating to the bank accounts of entities that have nothing to do with the 

sale of medical devices; thus, Plaintiffs had no right to this information. (See ECF No. 69.)

4. On August 20, 2020, Magistrate Judge Cummings issued a Minute Order denying 

Defendants’ Amended and Supplemented Motion to Quash (see ECF No. 212), which was 

followed shortly thereafter by a Memorandum Opinion and Order. (See ECF No. 213.)

5. Magistrate Judge Cummings’s Memorandum Opinion and Order found that 

Defendants did not have standing to object to the third party subpoenas, even though the 

subpoenas sought information regarding bank accounts where the Defendants were signatories 

on the account. (See ECF No. 213 at 3.) 

6. This finding constitutes a clear error of law, as the cases cited in Defendants’ 

motion establish that a party has standing to quash a third party subpoena that seeks the party’s 

bank records. (See ECF No. 69 at 3, 5-6) (citing Iantosca v. Benistar Admin Servs., Inc., No. 

 2 Defendants had originally filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena issued to Lakeside Bank on June 24, 2020, but 

later filed an amended and supplemented motion that also encompassed the subpoenas issued to the other banks. 

(See ECF No. 55.) 

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 214 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:8241
3

1:11-MC-0066-RLY-DML, 2011 WL 3155649, at *2 (S.D. Ind. July 26, 2011); Ultimate Timing 

LLC v. Simms, No. 3:09-MC-6-RLY-WGH, 2010 WL 378436 (S.D.Ind. Feb. 1, 2010); United 

States ex rel. Pool v. NMC, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-66-WTL-WGH, 2010 WL 4668790 (S.D.Ind. Nov. 

9, 2010)). While Magistrate Judge Cummings’ Memorandum Opinion and Order attempted to 

distinguish the authority cited in Defendants’ Motion to Quash, it ignored the case Iantosca v. 

Benistar Admin Services, Inc., where the Court held that “each movant whose banking records 

are sought by the Subpoena or about whom the records provide financial information has a 

legitimate interest in the privacy of that information sufficient to confer standing to challenge a 

Subpoena directed to its bank for those records.” 2011 WL 3155649, at *2. 

7. Further, the cases Magistrate Judge Cummings’s Order cited to in order to support 

the ruling that Defendants did not have standing to object to the third-party subpoenas on 

grounds of relevance and that the documents sought were outside the scope of Rule 26 are all 

distinguishable because they did not involve third party subpoenas seeking a party’s banking 

records. See Buonavolanto v. LG Chem, Ltd., No. 18 C 2802, 2019 WL 8301068, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 

Mar. 8, 2019) (movant was seeking to quash 62 third party subpoenas issued to hospitals); 

DeLeon-Reyes v. Guevara, No. 1:18-CV-01028, 2020 WL 3050230, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 

2020) (defendant was seeking to quash subpoena to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office); 

Parker v. Four Seasons Hotels, Ltd., 291 F.R.D. 181, 186 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (defendant was 

seeking to quash third party subpoenas issued to several individuals and hotels). 

8. In addition, Magistrate Judge Cummings’s Order also found that even if 

Defendants did have standing to move to quash the subpoenas, the information sought was 

relevant and within the scope of Rule 26. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 214 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:8242
4

9. While Defendants concede that Plaintiffs may have a right to discovery of the 

bank accounts of AIM, and even Mr. Iaderosa’s personal banking accounts, the subpoenas as 

written are overly broad and seek documents concerning bank accounts of entities that have 

nothing to do with this case. As a result, Magistrate Judge Cummings’s Order finding that 

Plaintiffs can subpoena information regarding these un-related bank accounts constitutes a clear 

error of law. See, e.g., Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., No. 93 C 5041, 1998 WL 9181, at *2 

(N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 1998) (“the legal tenet that relevancy in the discovery context is broader than in

the context of admissibility should not be misapplied so as to allow fishing expeditions in

discovery.”).

10. Because of the clear errors of law present in Magistrate Judge Cummings’ Order, 

Defendants are preparing to file an objection pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). 

11. However, in the interim, Defendants respectfully seek a stay of Magistrate Judge 

Cummings’s Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Quash until the District Court rules on 

Defendants’ soon to be filed objection. Defendants seek this relief on an emergency basis to 

ensure that Plaintiffs do not force the third party banks to produce the bank account information 

sought before the Court has the opportunity to rule on Defendants’ objection. 

12. “The Court has inherent power to control its docket, including the discretion to 

stay proceedings.” Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Vistana Condo. Owners Ass'n, No. 2:12-CV-01324-

GMN, 2013 WL 2355511, at *3 (D. Nev. May 29, 2013) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 

248, 254–55 (1936)).

13. Federal courts have found that it is proper to stay a Magistrate Judge’s discovery 

order pending the resolution of a party’s objection to the order where: (1) the objecting party has 

shown a likelihood of success on the merits of the objection; (2) the objecting party would suffer 

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 214 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:8243
5

irreparable injury absent the stay; (3) there is a lack of substantial prejudice to the opposing party 

by implementing a stay; and (4) a stay would serve the public interest. See Companhia 

Energetica Potiguar v. Caterpillar Inc., 2016 WL 7469993, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2016)

(citation omitted); see also Ameritox, Ltd v. Millennium Labs. Clinical Supply, Inc., No. 12-CV2797 W (RBB), 2013 WL 12108074, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2013) (same). Here, all factors 

are present and weigh in favor of issuing a stay.

14. First, Defendants have established a likelihood of success on the merits because 

Magistrate Judge Cummings made a clear error of law by finding that Defendants did not have 

standing to move to quash the subpoenas. In addition, Magistrate Judge Cummings made a clear 

error of law by alternatively finding that Plaintiffs were entitled to bank accounts of entities that 

have nothing to do with the sale of medical devices.

15. Second, Defendants would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay because denying 

Defendants’ request for a stay would enable Plaintiffs to force the banks to comply and produce 

the sensitive financial documents prior to the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ objection. Thus, if 

the District Court ultimately found that the Magistrate Judge did commit a clear error of law, 

then such a finding would provide no relief to Defendants as Plaintiffs would have already

obtained the bank records at issue.

16. Third, Plaintiffs will not suffer any prejudice through the stay. If the Court grants 

Defendants’ soon to be filed objection, then Plaintiffs will have no right to the bank account 

information they seek. If the Court denies Defendants’ soon to be filed objection, then ultimately 

Plaintiffs would have only been delayed in obtaining the documents. Given that Plaintiffs have 

thus far managed to compile a voluminous record in this matter, Defendants fail to see how 

Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by this incremental delay.

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 214 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:8244
6

17. Finally, public policy supports issuing a stay because of the privacy rights 

involved. Plaintiffs have no right to obtain sensitive financial information regarding bank 

accounts that have nothing to do with the claims involved in this case. Thus, issuing a stay will 

protect and preserve Defendants’ privacy rights while the Court rules on Defendants’ objection.

18. Defendants acknowledge that courts have generally found that filing an objection 

to a Magistrate Judge’s order does not usually warrant staying the Magistrate Judge’s order. 

However, in this case, if the Court does not grant the requested stay, then Defendants will be left 

without a meaningful procedure for objecting to Magistrate Judge Cummings’ order pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), as Plaintiffs could force the third party banks to produce 

the documentation and thereby moot any objection filed by Defendants.

19. Defendants bring this motion in good faith and not for any undue purposes of 

delay.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court 

grant Defendants’ Motion and enter a stay of Magistrate Judge Cummings’ Order denying 

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Third Party Subpoenas (ECF Nos. 212, 213) until the 

District Court rules on Defendants’ soon to be filed objection to Magistrate Judge Cummings’s

Order.

Dated: August 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

ADVANCED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, 

INC. D/B/A ESUTURES.COM and ANTHONY 

IADEROSA, JR.

 By: /s/ Alexander S. Vesselinovitch

One of Their Attorneys

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 214 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:8245
7

Alexander S. Vesselinovitch

Matthew T. Connelly

Freeborn & Peters LLP

311 S. Wacker Drive., Suite 3000

Chicago, IL 60606

avesselinovitch@freeborn.com

mconnelly@freeborn.com 

Michael S. Denniston 

Gregory G. Marshall 

Jack W. Selden

Erin K. Sullivan

Scarlett S. Nokes

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

1615 L Street NW, Suite 1350

Washington, DC 20036

mdenniston@bradley.com 

gmarshall@bradley.com 

jselden@bradley.com 

esullivan@bradley.com 

snokes@bradley.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 214 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:8246
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that he caused the foregoing emergency motion 

to be served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system.

/s/ Alexander S. Vesselinovitch

Case: 1:20-cv-03471 Document #: 214 Filed: 08/21/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8247