Court Opinion

ID: 9896201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 19:04:20.64008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:17.635124
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JON CHESNIK,                                )
                                            )
      Petitioner,                           )
                                            )
      v.                                    )      C.A. No. N23M-07-120
                                            )
BPO SOLUTIONS GROUP                         )
     CORPORATION,                           )
                                            )
      Respondent.                           )

                           Submitted: October 5, 2023
                           Decided: November 8, 2023

  On BPO Solutions Group Corporation’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order
  Granting in Part Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Out-Of-State
                          Subpoena to Produce Documents
                                     DENIED

                                     ORDER

Emily L. Skaug, Esquire; Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire, Attorneys for Petitioner
     Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware

Sean A. Meluney, Esquire, Attorney for Respondent
      Meluney, Alleman & Spence, LLC, Lewes, Delaware

JOHNSTON, J.
         1. By Order dated September 12, 2023, Commissioner O’Connor granted in

part Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Out of State Subpoena to

Produce Documents. The Commissioner required Respondent to produce:

                       IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Superior Court
                Civil Rule 132(a)(3)(i), and for the reasons stated by the Court in
                its bench ruling on August 25, 2023, that the Motion is
                GRANTED as follows:

                       Subject to Paragraph 4 below, no later than September 22,
                2023, Respondent shall produce to Petitioner the following
                documents responsive to category (i) on Exhibit “A” to
                Petitioner’s Subpoena Duces Tecum to Respondent:
                Respondent’s tax returns, Schedule K-1s, paystubs, and bank
                statements for the years 2017 through 2022, to the extent such
                documents exist (the “Compelled Documents”).

The Commissioner declined to compel production of check registers, check stubs,

or cancelled checks. All production is subject to a protective order.1

         2. Respondent moved for reconsideration of the September 12, 2023 Order.

Respondent argues that the documents are irrelevant to the underlying books and

records action pending in Wyoming. Respondent should not be compelled to

produce “highly confidential” commercial information and financial records.

Respondent alleges that Petitioner is seeking the records for the improper purpose

of pre-suit discovery against Respondent, who is a non-party in the Wyoming case.

1
    Transcript of Hearing before Commissioner Martin O’Connor, August 25, 2023.
                                               2
The Wyoming action is narrow and summary. A motion to dismiss is pending in

Wyoming.

      3. Petitioner contends that the compelled discovery is relevant. Respondent

is not a party in the Wyoming case. However, Petitioner alleged in the Wyoming

action that Respondent was created to facilitate the wrongdoing for which Petitioner

seeks to investigate the books and records. Additionally, Petitioner alleged that

Respondent received funds diverted from the Defendant in the Wyoming action.

      4.     Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 132(a)(3)(iv): “A judge may

reconsider any hearing or pretrial matter under subparagraph (3) only where it has

been shown on the record that the Commissioner’s order is based upon findings of

fact that are clearly erroneous, or is contrary to law, or is an abuse of discretion.”

      5.     The Court finds that all factual and legal arguments presented by

Respondent in the Motion for Reconsideration were considered by the

Commissioner.      The Commissioner limited the ruling to discovery materials

reasonably relevant to the underlying Wyoming litigation. Certain other documents

were excluded from production. To the extent the compelled production contains

confidential information, the protective order is in place. The Order specifically

contemplates cost shifting should production be deemed unduly burdensome or

expensive.

                                           3
      6. The Court finds that the Commissioner’s order is based upon findings of

fact that are not clearly erroneous, not contrary to law, and not an abuse of discretion.

      THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record, BPO Solutions

Group Corporation’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting in Part

Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Out-Of-State Subpoena to Produce

Documents is hereby DENIED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                              /s/ Mary M. Johnston
                                         The Honorable Mary M. Johnston

                                           4