The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States District Judge.
Respondents Myron Gushlak and Yelena Furman object to the report and recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge James Orenstein recommending that the court deny Respondents' various motions and adjudge Respondents in contempt of court. The court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. All of Respondents' motions are accordingly DENIED, and Applicant Debbie Gushlak's motion to hold Respondents in contempt is GRANTED. Myron Gushlak is ORDERED to pay $250 a day, every day, until he complies with the subpoena served upon him in June 2011. If he has not complied within thirty days, the court will, upon a motion by Debbie Gushlak, consider a more coercive sanction. Yelena Furman is ORDERED to pay $250 a day, every day, until she complies with the subpoena served upon her. Attorney Alan S. Futerfas is ORDERED to show cause within seven days of the issuance of this order why he should not be sanctioned for raising a frivolous argument in apparent contravention of Rule 11 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respondents' objections to the R&R (Docket Entry # 85) represent the end of a tortured procedural path embarked upon by the parties over a year ago and accurately recounted in the R&R (see R&R (Docket Entry # 82) at 2-6). At root, however, the case simple. In April 2011, Debbie Gushlak applied to the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, for assistance in conducting discovery related to a foreign judicial proceeding. (See Docket Entry # 1.) Debbie Gushlak was getting divorced in the Cayman Islands and sought production of certain documents from, among other individuals, her husband Myron and his alleged girlfriend, Yelena Furman, who were residing in this District. On June 23, 2011, the court granted Debbie Gushlak's application ex parte as to Myron Gushlak (Docket Entry # 15), and Debbie Gushlak served a subpoena on him that day. Later, in August, after considering an opposition by Furman, the court also granted the application as to Furman, and she was duly served with a subpoena. (See Docket Entry # 51.)
Respondents did not comply with the terms of the subpoenas, nor did they move to quash the subpoenas. The Respondents decided instead to file notices of appeal (see Docket Entries ## 18 and 59) and produce nothing. In October 2011, Debbie Gushlak moved to have Respondents held in contempt of court for failing to respond to the subpoenas. (See Docket Entry # 69.) Respondents countered with a variety of motions and requests, chief among them that all proceedings be stayed pending resolution of their appeals.*fn1 To date, Respondents have still not provided the court-ordered discovery to Debbie Gushlak.
Respondents request that the entire R&R be set aside and that Debbie Gushlak's application be dismissed. (Resp'ts' Mem of Law (Docket Entry # 85) at 1.) The court has, of course, long ago granted Debbie Gushlak's application (see Docket Entries ## 15 and 51) and will not reconsider that ruling. Here, the court reviews only Judge Orenstein's recommendations on the motions that were before him-namely, Debbie Gushlak's motion to hold Respondents in contempt and Respondents' various cross-motions.
The court will review de novo those portions of the R&R to which Respondents have lodged specific objections, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), but will review the remainder of the R&R for clear error, see U.S. Flour Corp. v. Certified Bakery, Inc., No. 10-cv-2522 (JS) (WDW), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29896, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012); Pall Corp. v. Entergris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).*fn2
Respondents make five specific objections. First, Respondents object to Judge Orenstein's denial of their motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding allegations that Debbie Gushlak stole phone records in preparing her application for leave to serve the subpoenas; second, they contend that Judge Orenstein erred by "failing to acknowledge the compelling proof and legal consequences of Debbie Gushlak's 'unclean hands'" (Resp'ts' Mem of Law at 15); third, Respondents argue that the R&R wrongly concludes that Myron Gushlak had an opportunity to be heard on the merits of Debbie Gushlak's application; fourth, Respondents object to Judge Orenstein's recommendation to deny their motion for a stay pending their appeals; and, finally, Respondents argue that the entire R&R is in error because the court did not retain jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas after Respondents filed their notices of appeal.
With respect to Respondents' first objection, there is no cause to hold an evidentiary hearing. At issue here is whether Respondents should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of a court-ordered subpoena. It is therefore irrelevant whether Debbie Gushlak stole Myron Gushlak's phone records. To the extent that this alleged fact somehow undermines the merits of Debbie Gushlak's application, then the appropriate time and place for such an argument was in a motion to quash the subpoenas. As noted above, Respondents did not avail themselves of the opportunity to make such a motion, and the time to do so has passed. If Respondents seek to assert some type of property right in the records or hope to initiate a criminal investigation, then they are in the wrong forum.
Respondents' second objection fails for the same reason as their first. Judge Orenstein was under no obligation to consider whether Debbie Gushlak had "clean hands" in making her application. The application was not before Judge Orenstein. His only task was to recommend whether Respondents should be held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order, and Debbie Gushlak's conduct in the run-up to her application is irrelevant to this question.
Respondent's third objection is irrelevant and incorrect. Whether Myron Gushlak was afforded an opportunity to be heard on the merits of Debbie Gushlak's application simply has no bearing on the question of Respondents' compliance with the court-ordered subpoenas-the primary issue before Judge Orenstein. Cf. Latino Officers Ass'n City of New York, Inc. v. City of New York, 558 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 2009) (providing the three elements of civil contempt). To the extent that Myron Gushlak's opportunity to be heard relates to Respondents' motion for a stay, Judge Orenstein's recommendation that the motion be denied is the subject of a separate objection.
In any event, Respondents' contention is without merit. The court expressly invited Myron Gushlak to file a motion to quash the subpoenas*fn3 (see June Order (Docket Entry # 15) at 3 n.2.), but, for reasons known only to Myron Gushlak and his counsel, he declined to exercise this right. It is now too late for him to litigate the validity of Debbie Gushlak's application.*fn4
Respondents' objection to the portion of the R&R recommending denial of their motion for a stay pending resolution of ...