Q: I was involved in a now closed receivership. I want access to some of the records of the entity that was in receivership and some emails and information I believe was sent to the receiver or her counsel. I contacted the former receiver. She said the entity’s records she had have been destroyed and if I want emails or information she or her counsel have, I would have to subpoena them and pay for the cost of locating and producing the items. Is this appropriate?
A: Probably. It depends on what the order approving the receiver’s final account and report, or other orders, state about record retention and production. A receiver is not public storage. Once the case is over, the receiver should not be obligated to keep, maintain or produce records or information obtained from the entity or property in receivership, or generated during the case. At the end of the case, the receiver should ask the court to instruct the receiver concerning disposition of the receivership’s records, both physical and digital. In some cases it may be appropriate to turn them over to the defendant (for example, when the defendant cures a default or settles with the plaintiff). In other cases it may be appropriate to turn them over to the plaintiff (for example, in government enforcement or fraud cases, or in partnership or corporate disputes when the plaintiff is successful). In many cases no party wants the records and it is appropriate for the court to order the receiver to abandon them. In such cases, the receiver needs to determine whether he or she can simply throw them away or whether they need to be shredded or otherwise destroyed. The receiver should also ask the court to authorize the receiver to reserve funds for such purpose or direct one or more of the parties to advance funds for such purpose.
Even if the receiver has destroyed the records obtained from a receivership entity or generated during the case, the receiver and the professionals are likely to have their own records relating to the case, hard copies and/or digital. Once the case is over, and the receiver has been discharged, the former receiver should not have to bear the burden of searching for or producing requested documents or information. It is, therefore, appropriate for the receiver to ask the court to provide, in the order discharging the receiver, that anyone seeking information or documents from the receiver, or the professionals, must pay for the time and cost of production. The Eighth Circuit in United States v. Kelly, 70 F4th 482, 487 ( 8th Cir. 2023) approved a district court order which required requesting parties to pay the costs that would be incurred by the former receiver producing records.
Receivers should consider including the following language in their final account and report orders to cover this issue:
If anyone contacts the receiver, an employee of the receiver, or the receiver’s professionals; or the receiver, his employees, or the receiver’s professionals are served with subpoenas or court orders, that require attendance and/or preparation or production of information and/or documents, for any purpose whatsoever, related to the receivership, the assets or entities in receivership, or the services of the receiver, his employees, or his professionals in this matter, including, but not limited to, discovery, deposition, hearing or trial, the requesting party or entity shall pay, in advance, the estimated fees and costs associated with the requested services and/or production, portal to portal.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Senior Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership, and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- “Prejudice” No Longer an Element to Determine Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Minimum Wage Increases for 2025 | By: Kelly O. Scott
- New Law Prohibits Discrimination on the Basis of Possessing a Driver's License | By: Tanner Hosfield
- LA City Council Approves $30 Minimum Wage for Hotel and LAX Workers | By: Pooja Nair
- New Law Mandates That Employees Can No Longer Be Required to Use Vacation Before Receiving Paid Family Leave Benefits | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Employer Alert: New Whistleblower Poster Required | By: Joanne Warriner
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014