The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 020) 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527 were read on this motion to/for CONTEMPT. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 021) 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546 were read on this motion to/for QUASH SUBPOENA, FIX CONDITIONS. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION In this action, for breach of a participation agreement in a secured loan, ABL Advisor, LLC, Louis Forster and Lantern Endowment Partners, L.P. (Plaintiffs) move by order to show cause pursuant to Judiciary Law §753 (A) (3) for an order holding (1) Patriot Credit Company LLC and Bluefin Capital Partners LLC (Defendants), along with non-parties Ian Peck (Peck, principal of Defendants), Terrence Doran (Doran, employee of Defendants) and Peter Levine, Esq. (Levine, former counsel of Defendants) in civil contempt of court for failing to respond or respond fully to post-judgment and enforcement subpoenas; and (2) Defendants, and non-parties Peck and Levine for failing to comply with the court’s January 13, 2021 order [January 2021 Order; NYSCEF Doc. No. 458] (mot seq no 20; NYSCEF Doc. No. 464). Defendants cross move pursuant to CPLR §2221 (e) for an order granting them leave to reargue1 their prior motion to vacate the default judgment and upon vacatur for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212; and pursuant to CPLR §§2304 and 3104 (a) for an order quashing or modifying information subpoenas served on defendants and non-parties Ian Peck and Terence Doran (NYSCEF Doc. No. 494). Non-party Peter M. Levine cross moves pursuant to CPLR §§5224(a)(3)(iii) and 5240 for an order quashing or modifying subpoenas served on him; pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c) for sanctions; and for an award of costs and disbursements. Defendants also move separately pursuant to §§CPLR 2304 and CPLR 3104 (a)2 for an order quashing or limiting Plaintiffs’ subpoenas issued to non-parties Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank (mot seq no 21; NYSCEF Doc. No. 528). BACKGROUND In March 2020, Plaintiffs obtained a money judgment against Defendants (Judgment; NYSCEF Doc. No. 340; Plf. Brief at 1). Plaintiffs then began post-judgment collections efforts, including serving information subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, subpoenas ad testificandum, and bank garnishments” (id.; referencing Mills Aff., 3). Some of Plaintiffs’ enforcement mechanisms were returned as undeliverable and for others they did not receive a response (id.). Defendants, Peck, Doran and Levine were each served with post-judgment subpoenas and each either failed to respond or failed to respond to Plaintiff’s satisfaction (id.; referencing Mills Aff.,
3, 14, 19). According to Plaintiffs, Matthew Press, (Press), current counsel for Defendants and Peck, has argued on several occasions that compliance with the subpoenas was not warranted and taken measures to otherwise delay compliance (id. at 1-2). For example, on October 7, 2020, according to Plaintiffs, Press asserted that his clients would not comply with the subpoenas because of Defendants’ pending motion to vacate (mot seq no 017). However, on November 2, 2020 Defendants’ application for a stay of all discovery was denied (Plf. Brief at 2; referencing NYSCEF Doc. No. 432 [November 2, 2020 Order]). Also on October 7, 2020, Defendants filed a motion seeking to quash subpoenas (mot seq no 18), stay all post-judgment discovery and enforcement efforts. Defendants’ request was denied in the November 2, 2020 order except that depositions of Defendants and Peck were stayed pending resolution of the motion (id.; referencing November 2, 2020 Order). On October 28, 2020, Defendants again filed a motion to quash by order to show cause (mot seq no 19), which included the same request for a stay of all post-judgment enforcement stated in the then-pending motion to quash (id.; referencing November 2, 2020 Order). The November 2, 2020 Order allows Plaintiffs to continue to seek information via paper discovery, and take third party depositions but disallowed Plaintiffs from taking Defendants’ depositions (NYSCEF Doc No 432). pending a decision on Defendants’ motion to vacate and motions to quash (i.e., mot seq nos 17, 18 and 19). On November 12, 2020 according to Plaintiffs, “Press refused to comply with the subpoenas because they were out of date, ignoring that the reason they were out of date was because his clients had failed to comply” (id.; referencing Mills Aff., 4). After the January 2021 Order was issued deciding motion sequence numbers 16-19 (details to be discussed below), and directing Defendants, Peck, Levine and Doran to comply with the subpoenas, according to Plaintiffs, Press advised Plaintiffs that he would respond to the outstanding subpoenas, on behalf of Defendants and Peck, by January 29, 2021 (id.; referencing Mills Aff., 6). According to Plaintiffs when they followed up on February 8, 2021, “Press advised he would respond to the outstanding subpoenas, on behalf of Defendants and Peck” by February 12, 2021 (id. at 3; referencing Mills Aff., 7). However, Plaintiffs claim that as of February 23, 2021, Plaintiffs received “no further contact” from Press regarding his clients’ compliance, “Doran has made no effort to contact” Plaintiffs despite due demand, and “Levine responded meaningfully to just 6 out of 17 items [in his subpoena]” (id.; referencing Mills Aff.,
