Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Michael Sassano

May 31, 2011

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL SASSANO, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gabriel W. Gorenstein, United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") has moved to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum served on the defendant's attorneys seeking financial information about the defendant. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to compel is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2007, the SEC instituted administrative proceedings against Michael Sassano pursuant to section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, sections 15(b)(6) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and sections 9(b) and 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. See In re Sassano, 2007 WL 268275, at *1 (Admin. Proceeding File No. 3-12554 Jan. 31, 2007). On July 18, 2008, the SEC entered an order against Sassano, based on an offer of settlement, that required Sassano to disgorge $1 and to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $1 million to the SEC. See In re Sassano, 2008 WL 2783571, at *4-5 (Admin. Proceeding File No. 3-12554 July 18, 2008).

On May 28, 2009, the SEC filed this action, the initial pleading of which was denominated "Application for Court Order Directing Compliance with an Order Issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission." See Docket # 1 ("Application"). Sassano failed to respond to the pleading, and the SEC moved for a default judgment. That motion was granted, and a default judgment was entered requiring Sassano to pay the SEC $900,000 plus post-judgment interest. See Order and Final Judgment by Default Directing Compliance with Order Issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed Dec. 3, 2009 (Docket # 7) ("2009 Judgment").*fn1 The SEC has received some payments toward this judgment but it remains unsatisfied.

Some time in late 2009, two lawyers -- Jonathan Harris and Steven Cash -- informed the SEC that they represented Sassano "in connection with his payment obligation."Declaration of John J. Graubard, filed Apr. 4, 2011 (Docket # 14) ("Graubard Decl.") ¶ 10. They stated, however, that they were not authorized to accept service on behalf of Sassano of any discovery requests. Id. During 2010, counsel for the SEC had several conversations with Harris about Sassano's payment and discovery obligations. Id. ¶ 12. In May 2010, Harris provided tax returns for Sassano and a company controlled by Sassano, as well as certain bank statements. Id.

In mid-2010, the SEC served various document requests and deposition notices on Sassano but Sassano did not respond to any of them. Id. ¶¶ 14-15, 17.

II. THE INSTANT MOTION

On January 20, 2011, the SEC sent a subpoena duces tecum to Harris, Cutler & Houghteling LLP ("Harris Cutler"), the law firm that was acting on Sassano's behalf. See id.

¶ 21; Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action, dated Jan. 20, 2011 (annexed as Ex. 7 to Graubard Decl.) ("Jan. 20, 2011 Subpoena"). The subpoena requests production of "[a]ll documents concerning any payment made by or on behalf of Sassano to Harris Cutler," and "[a]ll documents concerning any bank or financial account of Sassano." Jan. 20, 2011 Subpoena at 5. Harris Cutler has not provided any information responsive to this subpoena.

The SEC now moves to compel compliance with the subpoena.*fn2 Harris Cutler has filed a memorandum of law opposing the motion to compel, see Non-Party Harris, Cutler & Houghteling LLP's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, filed Apr. 21, 2011 (Docket # 20) ("Harris Opp."), and the SEC has filed reply papers.*fn3

III. GOVERNING LAW

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain discovery from non-parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. "Subpoenas issued under Rule 45 are subject to the relevance requirement of Rule 26(b)(1)." In re Refco Sec. Litig., 2011 WL 497441, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2011) (citation omitted). Under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery "that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Additionally, discovery devices contained in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.