Hi, I'd like to help you with your bankruptcy questions today.
Although the allowed scope of a Rule 2004 exam is broad, there are limitations to a court's subpoena power. Rule 45(c)(3)(A)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3):
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person-except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information;
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party; or
(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial.
So the answer to your question is yes, it may be a defense pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(i), "disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information," and possibly others.
The key here is that you would need to timely file a Motion to Quash and/or Motion to Modify within a very short period of time after being noticed. I would suggest that you consult a local attorney as soon as possible to discuss these issues.
If you were, in fact, never served with a subpoena, that could be another potential defense. However, it's extremely risky to simply ignore the Notice of the 2004 Examination on those grounds, as your case could simply be dismissed.
1) I want to say yes, but I don't see anything in the Code explicitly stating that petitioning creditors are parties. Let me find something more concrete for you.
2) If an Order was issued, the petitioning creditor will likely be held in contempt for failing to appear at the 2004 Examination.
Typically, the Debtor would have needed to file some kind of Motion for an Order to be entered. Was there anything like that filed?
The Code uses the term "entity" in lieu of "party." An "entity" includes person, estate, trust, governmental unit, and United States trustee.
(a) Examination on Motion. On motion of any party in interest, the court may order the examination of any entity.
(c) Compelling Attendance and Production of Documentary Evidence. The attendance of an entity for examination and for the production of documents, whether the examination is to be conducted within or without the district in which the case is pending, may be compelled as provided in Rule 9016 [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45] for the attendance of a witness at a hearing or trial...
(e) Mileage. An entity other than a debtor shall not be required to attend as a witness unless lawful mileage and witness fee for one day's attendance shall be first tendered. If the debtor resides more than 100 miles from the place of examination when required to appear for an examination under this rule, the mileage allowed by law to a witness shall be tendered for any distance more than 100 miles from the debtor's residence at the date of the filing of the first petition commencing a case under the Code or the residence at the time the debtor is required to appear for the examination, whichever is the lesser.
Was the lawful mileage and witness fee for one day's attendance at the 2004 Exam already tendered? If not, that might be another potential defense.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).