Arch Specialty Insurance Company v. Ding Sheng Corporation

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
-against-
24-cv-03583 (MKB) (JMW)
DING SHENG CORPORATION,
Defendant.
X
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Vitaly Vilenchik, Esq.
DAC Beachcroft LLP1
55 Broadway, Suite 1602
New York, NY 10006
Attorneys for Plaintiff
No other Appearances
WICKS, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Arch Specialty Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) brought claims against
Defendant Ding Sheng Corporation (“Defendant”) for breach of contract (Count I), unjust
enrichment (Count II), and accounts stated (Count III). (See generally, ECF No. 1.) After the
case was designated to arbitration, Plaintiff subsequently informed the Court that Defendant
failed to answer the Complaint or otherwise appear in this action, and requested the Clerk of the
Court issue a Certificate of Default against Defendant. (ECF No. 9.) The Clerk of the Court
entered default on June 18, 2024. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff subsequently filed its Motion for
Default Judgment on Count I and Count III of the Complaint (ECF No. 11), which was referred
1 Counsel appears to have changed firms as the instant application includes an address for the Firm of
DAC Beachcroft and the docket reflects the Firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson. Counsel is directed to update
the contact information on ECF.
12/22/2025
FILED
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Case 2:24-cv-03583-MKB-JMW Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
to the undersigned by the Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie (see Electronic Order dated July 22,
2024). The undersigned issued a Report & Recommendation, recommending that the Motion
be granted in part and denied in part, which Chief Judge Brodie adopted. (ECF Nos. 13, 15-16.)
Now that Plaintiff has judgment, he seeks assistance in post-judgment execution. Before
the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel non-party Xiang Xing Chu (“Chu”) to comply with a
subpoena issued by Plaintiff (ECF No. 19). Chu is the principal owner of Defendant/Judgment
Debtor and the primary applicant of the insurance policies that are the crux of the issues in this case.
The application is unopposed.2 For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Compel (ECF No.
19) is GRANTED.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 provides that “[i]n aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment
creditor or a successor in interest whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery from
any person--including the judgment debtor--as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the
state where the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2); see also Stati v. Republic of
Kazakhstan, No. 19-MISC-382 (PAE), 2024 WL 3442663, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2024),
appeal withdrawn, No. 24-2198, 2025 WL 513037 (2d Cir. Jan. 27, 2025) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
69(a)(2) (“Under Rule 69, a judgment creditor ‘may obtain discovery from any person” in aid of
judgment or execution ‘as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state where the court
is located.’”)).
Discovery under Rule 69 “is constrained principally in that it must be calculated to assist
in collecting on a judgment.” Id. (quoting EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 207
2 Opposition was to be filed on or before December 17, 2025, and no such filings were made. (See
Electronic Order dated 12/9/2025.) Indeed, Plaintiff filed a certificate of service demonstrating that non-
party Chu was served with the Order affording opportunity to oppose. (ECF No. 20.)
Case 2:24-cv-03583-MKB-JMW Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
(2d Cir. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Republic of Argentina v. NML Cap., Ltd., 573 U.S. 134, 134 S. Ct.
2250, 189 L. Ed. 2d 234 (2014)). “‘New York state's post-judgment discovery procedures, made
applicable to proceedings in aid of execution by Federal Rule 69(a)(1), have a similarly broad
sweep,’ providing that a ‘judgment creditor may compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the
satisfaction of the judgment.’” Id. (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5223) (under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5223 a
“judgment creditor may compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the
judgment.”)
The Second Circuit observed that post-judgment discovery to assist in post-judgment
collection is broad in both federal and New York courts. See EM Ltd., 695 F.3d at 207. This
means that creditors have “wide latitude in using the discovery devices provided by the Federal
Rules in post-judgment proceedings.” GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Elec. Wonderland, Inc., No. 07-
CV-3219 (PKC)(DF), 2012 WL 1933558, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2012) (internal citations
omitted). Put another way, judgment enforcement discovery is broader than discovery that could
be obtained in the underlying suit that led to the judgment.
It is against this backdrop that the undersigned analyzes the instant application.
DISCUSSION
On August 9, 2025, Plaintiff served Chu with a subpoena to appear for a deposition.
(See ECF Nos. 19-1, 19-2.) Upon non-compliance of the subpoena that required Chu to
appear for a deposition on September 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant application to compel
Chu to comply with the subpoena. See McCabe v. Conair LLC, No. 24-CV-5594 (RER)
(VMS), 2025 WL 2677095, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2025) (citing and quoting United States
ex rel. Ortiz v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 169 F. Supp. 3d 538, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)) (“where the
subpoenaed non-party neither objected to nor responded to the subpoena, the subpoenaing
Case 2:24-cv-03583-MKB-JMW Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
parties’ remedy was to file a motion to compel ‘in the district where compliance was
required’”)); see also Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Dinesh Verma Med., P.C., No. 22-CV-2893
(GRB)(JMW), 2023 WL 1967575, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2023) (granting motion to compel
where subpoenas were validly issued and served and noting that the non-party’s failure to
appear with no opposition to the motion warranted “enforcement of the subpoenas”).
Indeed, the subpoena here is valid. Rule 45 allows an attorney to issue and sign a
subpoena. See Fed R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). Attorney Vitaly Vilenchik, counsel for Plaintiff signed
the subpoena. (See ECF No. 19-1 at 2.) “Valid attorney-issued subpoenas under Rule 45(a)(3)
operate as enforceable mandates of the court on whose behalf they are served.” Mizrahi v.
Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 345 F.R.D. 392, 395 (E.D.N.Y. 2024) (quoting Freund v.
Weinstein, No. 08-CV-1469 (FB) (MDG), 2009 WL 4065585, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23,
2009)). “Absent an improperly issued subpoena or an ‘adequate excuse’ by the non-party,
failure to comply with a subpoena made under Rule 45 may be deemed a contempt of the
court from which the subpoena issued.” Id.
The subpoena included the subject matter of what topics were to be discussed.
Specifically, the eleven topics were:
SUBJECT NO. 1: The 2019 Policy, and any related Documents and
Communications between You and Arch.
SUBJECT NO. 2: The 2020 Policy, and any related Documents and
Communications between You and Arch.
SUBJECT NO. 3: Documents and Communications between Arch and You,
as well as Arch and Your insurance broker, concerning the 2019 Additional
Premium.
SUBJECT NO. 4: 	Documents and Communications between Arch and You,
as well as Arch and Your insurance broker, concerning the 2020 Additional
Premium.
Case 2:24-cv-03583-MKB-JMW Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
SUBJECT NO. 5: Documents and Communications exchanged with any other
person concerning the 2019 Additional Premium.
SUBJECT NO. 6: Documents and Communications exchanged with any other
person concerning the 2020 Additional Premium.
SUBJECT NO. 7: 	Documents, Communications, and information concerning
any and all of the Assets of DSC, its parent entities, and subsidiaries.
SUBJECT NO. 8: 	Documents, Communications, and information concerning
any and all bank accounts, or other deposit or checking or money market
accounts held at any financial institution by DSC, its parent entities, and
subsidiaries.
SUBJECT NO. 9: Documents, Communications, and information relating to
or concerning the ownership of DSC, its parent entities, and subsidiaries.
SUBJECT NO. 10: Documents, Communications, and information relating to
or concerning the operation of DSC, its parent entities, and subsidiaries.
SUBJECT NO. 11: Documents, Communications, and information to aid in
the collection of the Judgment.
(ECF No. 19-1 at 9-10.)
The above topics are clearly relevant and in furtherance of Plaintiff’s post-judgment
collection efforts. “Courts have regularly concluded that ‘the presumption should be in favor
of full discovery of any matters arguably related to the creditor's efforts to trace the debtor's
assets.’” Gujarat State Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, No. 19-MC-0547 (RA),
2022 WL 1567464, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022) (quoting Owens v. Republic of Sudan, No.
CV 01-2244 (JDB), 2020 WL 4039302, at *5 (D.D.C. July 17, 2020)). Of course, it is the
Court’s role to determine that what is sought is relevant under Rule 26. The same applies to
Rule 69(a)(2), where discovery “is constrained principally in that it must be calculated to
assist in collecting on a judgment.” Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp., No.
22-CV-4422 (LJL), 2024 WL 232103, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2024).
Having found that the topics to be discussed at the subpoena are relevant and
Case 2:24-cv-03583-MKB-JMW Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
proportional to execution of the judgment coupled with Chu’s role as Defendant’s owner and
the primary application to the insurance policies at issue, there are no grounds to deny the
instant motion. Moreover, no opposition or motion to quash is before the Court. Therefore,
Chu is directed to complied with the subpoena.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted, and the deposition of Chu is to be
taken on or before February 6, 2026. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order by December
30, 2025, upon Chu and file proof of service within two business days of service. Plaintiff
shall file a letter regarding the status of compliance by February 13, 2026. Should Chu fail to
obey the subpoena or this court Order, such noncompliance could be deemed a contempt of
the court order under Rule 45(g).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order on non-party Chu by December 30, 2025, and
file proof of service within two business days. The deposition shall take place no later than
February 6, 2026. Plaintiff shall file a letter regarding the status of compliance by February 13,
2026.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 22, 2025
S O 	O R D E R E D:
/S/ James M. Wicks
JAMES M. WICKS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:24-cv-03583-MKB-JMW Document 21 Filed 12/22/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>