Brian Corrigan, of Farrell Fritz, writes about a case where the NY Surrogote’s Court awarded a non-party $40,000 in counsel fees for compliance with a subpoena. HIs article begins as follows:
New York CPLR 3122(d) provides that the “reasonable production expenses” incurred by a non-party’s compliance with a subpoena shall be defrayed by the party issuing the subpoena. May a non-party’s counsel fees related to responding to a subpoena involving the production of electronically stored information be included as part of the “reasonable production expenses”?
This largely unsettled question was recently answered in the affirmative by Surrogate Peter J. Kelly in Matter of Khagan, 2019 NY Slip Op 29352 [Sur Ct. Queens Co. Sept. 18, 2019], who noted that “there is a dearth of Surrogate’s Court opinions on this issue”. Upon consideration of the limited relevant case law, the policy behind the statute, and the facts giving rise to the document discovery dispute, the Court awarded a non-party $40,000 in counsel fees and $5,571.28 for an e-discovery vendor’s services, pursuant to CPLR 3122(d). The Khagan decision presents an instructive analysis that may guide both attorneys issuing subpoenas duces tecum and those advising clients in receipt of such subpoenas.
To see full article, click Corrigan: Surrogate’s Court Awards a Non-Party $40,000 in Counsel Fees for Complying with a Subpoena Requiring Production of ESI.
Posted by Lewis J. Saret, Co-General Editor, Wealth Strategies Journal..