On February 16, 2023, the First Department issued a decision in HAI-2, LLC v. BlackRock Fin. Mgt., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op. 00928, affirming the quashing of a last-minute subpoena, explaining:
Plaintiff’s argument that defendant did not have standing to quash the subpoena is unpreserved because it is raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, the motion court has the power to control and order discovery and may, sua sponte, issue a protective order in its role as the supervisor of such discovery.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in quashing the subpoena. Plaintiff had four years to conduct discovery and yet it insists that it became aware of some smoking gun evidence, which arguably would prove its case, on the last day of the discovery window. That argument is undercut by its 2020 litigation hold notice to UBS, which indicates plaintiff’s awareness of UBS’s connection to the fee sharing agreement and its belief that UBS would possess relevant documents. Nevertheless, it chose not to subpoena any documents for almost two years. Furthermore, plaintiff’s explanation that the matter has been pending for over four years, due to defendant’s delay tactics and the pandemic, is unpersuasive. Plaintiff cannot point to any court orders staying discovery during the proceeding. Similarly, although the Covid-19 pandemic most likely contributed to some of the delays in the case, the parties were clearly able to conduct the entirety of discovery. Plaintiff further asserts, without any support in the record, that it was under the impression that it had to complete party discovery before proceeding to third-party discovery. The parties’ discovery schedule was governed by a stipulation. Plaintiff blames defendant for drafting a less than clear stipulation without explaining why it signed it without seeking to clarify its terms beforehand. It further cannot point to any evidence that the parties contemplated delaying nonparty discovery until some unspecified point in the future, and the court’s six discovery conferences should have provided plaintiff ample opportunity to confirm its understanding.
(Internal citations omitted).