Merson v. the Lemelson Group

Vermont Superior Court
Filed 04/01/26
Lamoille Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Lamoille Unit Case No. 25-CV-04332
154 Main Street
Hyde Park VT 05655
802-888-3887
www.vermontjudiciary.org
Joshua Merson et al v. The Lemelson Group, LLC

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
Title: Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash or Stay Subpoena; Motion
to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Motion: 11; 12; 16)
Filer: Diana Pikulski
Filed Date: February 18, 2026; March 05, 2026

Pending before the court are two discovery motions filed by defendant The Lemelson
Group LLC An Emergency Motion for Protective Order and to Quash or Stay Subpoenas
(Motion 11-12) and a Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines (Motion 16).
1. Motion 11-12
The court has already declined to grant emergency relief on the first motion.
Turning to the merits, defendant seeks to quash plaintiffs' subpoenas to the New York
State Department of State, Grassi & Co., Intuit Payments Inc. Quickbooks, Airbnb, and
-

Expedia Group VRBO. The subpoenas generally seek information about defendants' assets.
Defendant's primary argument is that these subpoenas are outside the scope of Writ
of Attachment and Order for Trustee Process at Union Bank, otherwise irrelevant and
overbroad and seek confidential information.

Under Rule 45 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure, the court for which a
subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it (i) fails to allow reasonable
time for compliance, (11) requires travel in excess of 50 miles; requires disclosure of
privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or (iv) subjects a
person to undue burden. V.R.C.P. 45(c)(8)(A). A subpoena may also be quashed it calls for
"clearly irrelevant matters." Adams-Thompson v. Potter, No. 755-11-15 Wnev, 2018 WL
11358771, at *2 (Vt. Super. Mar. 29, 2018) (quoting 9A Wright & Miller et al., Federal
Practice & Procedure: Civil 3d § 2459)) (Teachout, J.).

Discovery of a party's financial condition or ability to satisfy a judgment is generally
not permitted because it is not relevant to the parties' claims or defenses and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See, e.g., Insured
Advoc. Grp., LLC v. Spartan Servs. Corp., No. 23-CV-07212 (LJL), 2024 WL 4893580, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2024) (citations omitted). By contrast, such discovery is broadly available
after a judgment has been issued. Jd. at n.3.
Here, the court has approved the attachment of $53,584.35. Plaintiffs accordingly
may seek discovery to satisfy the ordered attachment but may not otherwise seek discovery
regarding defendant’s ability to satisfy a potential judgment. 1 The subpoenas are not
overbroad given that permissible goal, with the exception of the subpoena to Intuit
Payments, Inc. – Quickbooks, which seeks copies of the defendant’s twenty most recent
estimates.
Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and to quash accordingly is granted in part
and denied in part. The motion is granted insofar as the request to Intuit Payments, Inc. –
Quickbooks is modified to remove the request for defendant’s 20 most recent invoices. The
motion is otherwise denied.
1. Motion 16
Defendant also seeks to extend the discovery deadlines in this case. That motion is
also granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied with respect to the request to
extend the expert disclosure deadline because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate excusable
neglect for failing to seek an extension of that deadline until after it expired. See V.R.C.P.
6(b)(1)(B). The motion is granted insofar as the court extends the deposition deadline until
June 5, 2026, and the trial-ready date until July 15, 2026.
Order
Motion 11-12 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Motion 16 is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The court will take the parties’ competing summary-judgment motions under
advisement after briefing on the cross-motion is complete.

Electronically signed on: 4/1/2026 pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

_______________________________________
Benjamin D. Battles
Superior Court Judge

1 Defendant can thus moot the subpoenas by providing the information necessary to

attach $53,584.35 in accordance with the court’s approval order.