The following papers were considered by the court in determining three discovery motions:Papers NumberedNotice of Motion, dated April 12, 2019, to Quash or Amend Subpoenas and for a Protective Order, with Affirmation, dated April 12, 2019, of Thomas J. Wiegand, Esq., in Support, Providing Exhibits A through H and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion 1, 2, 3Notice of Cross-Motion, dated April 24, 2019, for an Order So-Ordering The Proposed Response Protocol for JPMorgan Chase’s Non-Party Subpoenas, with Affirmation, dated April 24, 2019, of Zachary G. Newman, Esq., in Support of Cross-Motion and in Opposition to Motion, With Exhibits A though L, and Memorandum of Law in Support of Cross-Motion and in Opposition to the Motion 4, 5, 6Reply Affirmation of Thomas J. Wiegand, Esq., dated April 29, 2019, Providing Exhibits A through D, and Memorandum of Law, dated April 29, 2019, in Support of the Motion and in Opposition to the Cross-Motion 7Order to Show Cause, dated April 29, 2019, to Seal Confidential Information Included in the Motion and Cross-Motion, in accordance with a Confidentiality Order dated February 8, 2019, with Affirmation, dated April 26, 2019, of Justin Ellis, Esq., in Support 8,9Affirmation in Response to the Motion to Seal, dated April 29, 2019, of Zachary G. Newman, Esq 10DECISION and ORDER In this contested accounting proceeding, JPMorgan Chase, Inc., as petitioner and trustee of the trust created by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., dated December 27, 1943 (“Trust”), served judicial subpoenas, dated March 6, 2019, on five corporate entities affiliated with the Rockefeller family (“Rockefeller entities”).1 Lucy Waletzky, income beneficiary and objectant, moved, pursuant to CPLR 2304 and 3101, for an order quashing these subpoenas and for the issuance of a protective order. Petitioner cross-moved for an order directing the objectant to comply with a proposed “Response Protocol.” Finally, by order to show cause, objectant moved to seal certain confidential information filed in connection with the two other motions.At the call of the calendar of April 30, 2019, the court granted, as a threshold matter, the objectant’s unopposed motion to seal portions of the two discovery motions addressed herein, in accordance with the confidentiality agreement executed by the parties and so-ordered by this court on February 8, 2019. In compliance with the agreement, the parties filed both redacted and unredacted copies of the documents associated with these motions. The court directed that only the redacted copies be made accessible to the public.As to objectant’s motion to quash the five subpoenas served on the Rockefeller entities, and for the issuance of a protective order, the court first addressed the issue of standing. Although the court concluded that objectant did not have standing to move to quash, having not articulated a proprietary interest in the records of a non-party (AQ Asset Mgt. LLC v. Levine, 111 AD3d 245, 260 [1st Dept 2013]), such ruling did not conclude the issue. As the First Department observed in AQ Asset Mgt., a court has the power to control and order discovery and may, even sua sponte, issue a protective order in its role as the supervisor of such discovery.Therefore, the court granted a protective order to the following extent as to each of the five subpoenas: Subpoena Requests one through four, six and seven, and nine through eleven, which relate to information concerning the Trust in question and its assets, as well as Request eight, which relates to the tax returns of the Trust, should be limited to a request for documents generated, created, produced or received during the period from 1962 through 1975, or documents that make reference to that period.As to Request 12, petitioner has failed to show that, under the circumstances here, documents concerning all assets held by or for the benefit of Objectant during the 50 years of the accounting period are necessary for petitioner’s defense against the objections. Therefore, Request 12 should be stricken from the subpoenas.As to petitioner’s cross-motion requesting that the court so-order a “Response Protocol” for the parties’ management of the responses to the subpoenas, the court declined to so-order such a formal arrangement. Instead the court directed the parties to meet with a court attorney-referee for a conference following the calendar, to discuss how the parties might most efficiently manage the process.This decision, together with the transcript of the April 30, 2019 proceedings, constitutes the order of the court.Dated: May 20, 2019
