USDC SDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED
----------------------------------------------------------------- X DOC #: _________________
BROIDY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC : DATE FILED: June 11, 2018
and ELLIOTT BROIDY, :
:
Movants, :
:
-v- : 18-mc-240 (KBF)
:
JOSEPH ALLAHAM, : ORDER
:
Respondent. :
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:

The Court is in receipt of respondent Joseph Allaham’s (“Allaham”) request

for an extension of time—until June 15, 2018—to produce certain documents

responsive to the subpoena. (ECF No. 8.) Allaham’s counsel argues that due to the

“unforeseen circumstance” of Allaham’s wife giving birth on June 8, 2018, Allaham

has been unable to assist with the production and determine whether documents

are responsive, and therefore additional time is needed.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the circumstance of Allaham’s wife

being pregnant has now been used multiple times to delay compliance with the

subpoena. All parties have known for some time now that Allaham’s wife is

pregnant, and therefore the fact that she went into labor is not an “unforeseen

circumstance” that would justify further delay. Allaham (and his counsel) had

ample opportunity to review potentially responsive documents before compliance

was due—the fact that they apparently did not do so (combined with the fact that

no response, not even an objection, was filed by the compliance date) further

suggests that Allaham never intended to comply with the subpoena or produce any
documents whatsoever. Put simply, the fact that Allaham has been unable to

“assist” in reviewing potentially responsive documents over the past three days,

now that the Court has been forced to intervene and order immediate compliance, is

not a valid excuse.1

Additionally, counsel has represented that there is a category of documents

that “do not require Mr. Allaham’s review,” and that such documents will be

produced immediately in compliance with the Court’s previous Orders. (ECF No. 8

at 2.) But counsel does not explain why certain documents do require Allaham’s

review, or why counsel is “unable to determine” whether such documents are

responsive. It strikes the Court as unusual that trained counsel would be unable to

review documents for responsiveness without the aid of the client. Absent further

explanation, the Court will not extend the compliance deadline any further.

The Court has sympathy for the position that Allaham now finds himself in.

That said, the Court will not approve yet another delay of production for documents

that should have already been reviewed and produced. For the third time, the

Court hereby ORDERS that Allaham produce all responsive documents

immediately subject to a provisional “Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation.

Dated: New York, New York

June 11, 2018

______________________________________
KATHERINE B. FORREST
United States District Judge

1 The Court further notes that it ordered compliance within 72 hours on June 6, 2018, and Allaham’s

wife is not alleged to have gone into labor until June 8, 2018. Counsel makes absolutely no attempt
to explain why, given the tight deadline, Allaham was not in the office reviewing potentially
responsive document on June 7, 2018.