Robert Frederick Schaeffer, Plaintiff, v. GSE GATEMORE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC ANDREW WITLIEB BRETT FALKOFF (2026)

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 72, 73, 74 were read on this motion for DISCOVERY.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 were read on this motion to QUASH SUBPOENA, FIX CONDITIONS .

This is an action for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that plaintiff entered into a commission agreement with defendant GSE Worldwide, which entitled him to recover commissions for endorsement deals entered into by nonparty, Bryson DeChambeau. From 2016 through the filing of the complaint in 2021, plaintiff alleges, DeChambeau obtained significant endorsement deals, but plaintiff was not paid the commissions he was due on those deals.

In motion sequence 002, plaintiff moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3124, to compel defendants to provide fully responsive answers to plaintiff's interrogatories and notice for discovery and inspection. In motion sequence 003, defendants move to quash plaintiff's fourteen (14) nonparty subpoenas served upon entities who purportedly entered endorsement deals with DeChambeau. Motion sequences 002 and 003 have been consolidated herein for disposition.

In this motion, plaintiff argues that defendants' responses and objections to plaintiff's first production of documents and first set of interrogatories are insufficient. Plaintiff submits that the documents and responses consist "substantially of standard and customary objections and contained minimal substantive information" (NYSCEF doc. no. 52). In a deficiency letter dated November 16, 2022, plaintiff provided detailed responses to defendants' objections and responses to interrogatory nos. 6-21, and document request nos. 1-19, and specifically identified why the documents were requested and why the information sought is relevant.

In opposition, defendants argue that they substantially complied with their discovery obligations during the pendency of this motion. Additional responses were made with respect to the bulk of plaintiff's demands, and defendants submit that they provided relevant and responsive information.

However, with respect to plaintiff's interrogatory request nos. 8 and 9, and document requests 14 and 15, defendants maintain their objections to production of any information. According to defendants, these demands relate to defendant GSE's corporate restructuring and merely reflect a prior acquisition and rebranding. Defendants maintain that this information is wholly irrelevant and unrelated to plaintiff's breach of contract claim, premised upon an oral agreement, and does not agree that discovery of this information assists in determining whether plaintiff is owed his 5% commission from 2016 to 2021 (NYSCEF doc. no. 58, pg. 3). This court agrees.

"CPLR 3101(a) provides for the 'full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action' " (Madia v CBS Corp, 146 AD3d 424, 424—25 [NY App Div 1st Dept 2017]). "Under this standard, disclosure is required 'of any facts which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity' " (id). Under CPLR 3124, a party moving to compel discovery must establish that the discovery it seeks is 'material and necessary' and meets the test of 'usefulness and reason' " (Bd of Mgrs of Seaport S Condo v Gobin, 76 Misc 3d 1221(A) [NY Sup Ct 2022]). Normally, "if there is any possibility that the information is sought in good faith for possible use as evidence-in-chief or in rebuttal or for cross-examination, it should be considered evidence material ... in the prosecution or defense" (Allen v Crowell—Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d at 407 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). "[T]he principle of 'full disclosure' does not give a party the right to uncontrolled and unfettered disclosure" (Mendives v Curcio, 174 AD3d 796, 797 [2nd Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). To warrant disclosure, plaintiff must establish how the information sought would be useful, avoid delay, and sharpen the issues to be decided in this action (CPLR 3101[a]; id at 406).

In his reply affirmation, plaintiff fails to identify any further dispute regarding the document production made by defendants during the pendency of this motion. His arguments there are exclusively directed to those demands to which defendants objected — interrogatory request nos. 8-9 and document requests 14-15. Plaintiff generally states that "the transactional documents are clearly relevant" (NYSCEF doc. no. 60), but does not sufficiently illustrate how defendants' corporate restructuring speaks to a viable cause of action asserted in the complaint.

This court is not persuaded that documents regarding GSE's rebranding from a company called Gatemore, and information regarding Gatemore's acquisition of a company, TLA, is relevant to whether an oral agreement was entered which obligated defendants to pay plaintiff a 5% commission on all endorsement deals. Plaintiff's arguments fail to demonstrate how records regarding defendants restructuring would be useful, avoid delay, and sharpen the issues to be decided in this action — namely, whether an oral agreement was formed, whether the terms of that agreement were breached, whether certain promises were made, or whether plaintiff relied upon those promises to his detriment (CPLR 3101[a]; id at 406).

Plaintiff's motion to compel information related to interrogatory request nos. 8 and 9, and document requests 14 and 15, is, therefore, denied.

Turning now to defendants' motion to quash, this court finds that defendants' request to prohibit plaintiff from seeking nonparty discovery should be denied. Defendants request an order, pursuant to CPLR 2304, to quash fourteen (14) subpoenas issued to companies who purportedly entered into endorsement agreements with defendants. Plaintiff opposes the motion and cross-moves for the same discovery that was the subject of motion sequence 002.

A party or nonparty moving to quash a subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested disclosure "is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious" (Maragos v Town of Hempstead Indus. Dev. Agency, 174 AD3d 611, 614—15 [2d Dept 2019]).The person seeking to quash the subpoena bears the burden of establishing that the requested documents and records are irrelevant (Ledonne v Orsid Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 598 citing, Velez v Hunts Point Multi-Serv Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104).

The question to be resolved in this action is whether an oral agreement existed such that plaintiff is entitled to a monetary share of all endorsement agreements entered into by defendants. Plaintiff's request for disclosure of the agreements from third party entities is wholly appropriate, especially where, as here, there is a dispute as to whether any agreement existed, the scope of that agreement, and whether the endorsement agreements were applicable during the five-year window at issue here, requiring payment of commissions to plaintiff (2016-2021).

Although defendants assert that some of the agreements were entered after plaintiff's role with GSE was terminated, that averment speaks to the ultimate admissibility of the agreement, not its discoverability. The scope of permissible discovery is broad, and the discovery of documents is permitted, even if the documents may not be admissible in evidence, provided that the production of such documents may lead to disclosure of admissible evidence (Fell v Presbyterian Hospital in New York at Columbia—Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 98 AD2d 624, 625 [1st Dept1983] ). Plaintiff should be permitted the opportunity to engage in discovery and determine if defendants' assertions are, in fact, true. Nothing in the record before the court establishes that compliance with the subpoenas would be "futile" or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of irrelevant information (Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams, 71 NY2d 327 [1988] [a motion to quash a subpoena should be granted only where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry]). It is this court's view that plaintiff's subpoenas comply with CPLR 3101 and do not constitute an impermissible "fishing expedition."

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (motion seq. no. 002), is denied, without prejudice, with leave to re-file in a Commercial Division Rule 14-compliant submission following party depositions, and it is further

ORDERED that defendants' motion to quash (motion seq. no. 003) is denied, and responses to plaintiff's subpoena shall be served no later than August 14, 2026; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery (motion seq. no. 003) is denied as duplicative.

DATE July 10, 2026

Robert R. Reed, J.S.C.

Robert R. Reed, J.