UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ZHU ZHAI HOLDINGS LIMITED and 

PETER PUI TAK LEE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEVEN IVANKOVICH,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

DEFENDANT STEVEN IVANKOVICH’S MOTION TO 

QUASH SUBPOENA TO JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA

Defendant Steven Ivankovich moves to quash Plaintiffs’ subpoena to JP Morgan Chase 

Bank, NA pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d). In support thereof, Defendant states 

as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

On February 12, 2021, Plaintiffs served a subpoena (“Subpoena”) on JP Morgan Chase 

Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) through its registered agent, CT Corporation. (See Exhibit 1.) That Subpoena 

is overly broad in subject matter scope, and seeks documents that are neither relevant to this case, 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. The Subpoena, 

which seeks commercial information and documents, is therefore unduly burdensome under FRCP 

45(d) and should be quashed or at a minimum, modified. 

BACKGROUND

Steven Ivankovich operates a residential real estate development and management business

through a network of entities. Two of those entities, Atlas Apartment Acquisitions, LLC and Atlas 

Residential Holdings, Limited are the borrowers on the two promissory notes at issue in Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint (hereinafter, “Borrowers’). 

2020-CV-4985
2

Defendant Ivankovich is not a borrower or co-borrower on either of the loans at issue. 

Instead, Defendant signed limited guaranty agreements agreeing to guarantee the two loans under 

specific circumstances only. In his role as a limited guarantor, Defendant pledged as collateral his 

rights to distributions from an entity called Overlook Managing Member, LLC (“Overlook”). 

Overlook is the parent of a portfolio of properties which are defined in the Subpoena as “Portfolio 

Properties.” 

None of the Atlas entities beyond Overlook and the Portfolio Properties are relevant to this 

action to enforce the limited guaranties Defendant signed. Plaintiffs’ subpoena is overly broad in 

that it seeks documents relating to a host of unrelated Atlas entities. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ subpoena 

defines “Atlas” as: “”Atlas’ means Atlas Residential USA, Atlas Holdings, Atlas Residential 

Management, Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower, LLC, and any and all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, 

predecessors-in-interest, and successors-in-interest, including, without limitation, Atlas Apartment 

Acquisitions, LLC and Atlas Residential Holdings, Limited.” See, Exhibit 1, Definition 3. None of 

the identified Atlas entities are the borrowers in this case. Worse, this definition could be 

interpreted to include all of the Atlas in the entire network of companies. 

Plaintiffs’ overly broad definition of “Atlas” renders the entirety of the Subpoena improper. 

Request for production numbers 1 and 3 from Plaintiffs’ Subpoena seek all communications, 

documents and statements for a variety of Atlas entities that have nothing to do with this case. 

Similarly, request for production number 2 seeks all of Mr. Ivankovich’s communications with 

Chase (including communications relating to Atlas entities that have no relation to this case) as well 

as his personal bank statements. While request for production number 4 is limited to Overlook and 

the Portfolio Properties, it seeks documents well beyond those to which Plaintiffs are entitled under 

the documents governing the loans at issue or that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 

of admissible evidence. 
3

WHEREFORE, Defendant Steve Ivankovich requests that the Court quash the Subpoena in 

its entirety on the basis that it seeks commercial information and documents that are neither relevant 

nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is therefore unduly 

burdensome. In the alternative, Defendant requests that the Court modify the subpoena so that it 

seeks documents reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. 

Date February 17, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Daryl M. Schumacher

 One of its attorneys 

Daryl M. Schumacher 

Kopecky Schumacher Rosenburg LLC

120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 380-6556
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 17, 2021 I electronically filed the foregoing document using the 

CM/ECF system, which will provide electronic notice and an electronic link to this document to all counsel 

of record. 

/s/ Daryl Schumacher