Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Greenspon v. Black Knight Financial Services, Inc.
Supreme Court of Delaware
September 15, 2017
MICHAEL C. GREENSPON, Petitioner Below, Appellant,
BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., CITI BANK, N.A., Respondents Below, Appellees.
Submitted: June 20, 2017
Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware
VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
15th day of September 2017, having considered the
parties' briefs, the appellee's post-briefing
submission, the appellant's response in opposition to the
submission, and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court
(1) For an action he brought in a circuit court in Hawaii,
the appellant, Michael C. Greenspon, sought the production of
documents owned by CIT Bank, N.A. ("CIT") and
stored by Black Knight Technology Solutions, LLC
("BKTS"), an entity affiliated with Black Knight
Financial Services, Inc. ("BKFS"). Because BKFS is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Florida, Greenspon petitioned the Superior Court Prothonotary
to issue a subpoena to BKFS' registered agent in Delaware
for the production, in Florida, of the CIT documents stored
by BKTS. A Commissioner quashed the subpoena on the basis
that it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction and served on the
wrong party. This appeal is from the Superior Court's
denial of Greenspon's motion to reconsider the
Commissioner's order quashing the subpoena.
(2) In the proceedings before the Commissioner, CIT joined in
BKFS' motion to quash the subpoena, and Greenspon filed a
motion to compel. Following full briefing on the motions, the
Commissioner conducted a hearing on June 28, 2016 and issued
the order quashing the subpoena on July 19, 2016. Greenspon
filed a motion to reconsider the Commissioner's order.
After a transcript of the hearing was prepared and the
parties submitted briefs on the motion to reconsider,
the Superior Court issued an order denying
reconsideration. In the December 21, 2016 order, the Superior
Court determined that Greenspon "failed to meet his
burden of proving that the 'Commissioner's order is
based upon findings of fact that are clearly erroneous, or is
contrary to law, or is an abuse of discretion.'"
This appeal followed.
(3) In his opening brief on appeal, Greenspon claims that the
Superior Court reviewed the Commissioner's order under
the wrong standard of review. Greenspon argues that if the
Superior Court had applied the correct standard of review,
the court would have granted the motion to reconsider.
(4) Under Superior Court Civil Rule 132, Commissioners have
the power to hear certain case-dispositive matters and
"non case-dispositive" matters.Commissioners
issue orders determining non case-dispositive
matters. In case-dispositive matters, Commissioners
submit proposed findings of facts and recommendations for
disposition by a Superior Court Judge.
(5) A party may file objections to a Commissioner's order
by filing a motion for reconsideration under Rule
l32(a)(3)(ii). Rule l32(a)(3)(iv) provides that "[a]
judge may reconsider any hearing or pretrial matter under
subparagraph (3) only where it has been shown in the record
that the Commissioner's order is based upon findings of
fact that are clearly erroneous, or is contrary to law, or is
an abuse of discretion."
(6) In this case, Greenspon submitted objections to the
Commissioner's order in a motion to reconsider filed
under Rule l32(a)(3)(ii). The Superior Court denied
reconsideration after determining, under Rule l32(a)(3)(iv),
that Greenspon "failed to meet his burden of proving
that the 'Commissioner's order is based upon findings
of fact that are clearly erroneous, or is contrary to law, or
is an abuse of discretion.'" On appeal, the Court
finds no basis to disturb the Superior Court's order.
Greenspon's claim that the Superior Court applied the
wrong standard of review is without merit.
(7) To the extent Greenspon suggests that the Commissioner
erred when treating the motion to quash and motion to compel
as non case-dispositive matters, we have not considered that
claim because Greenspon did not raise it in his objections,
and there is no plain error in the record. The Commissioner
considered the motions within the context of a discovery
dispute and issued an order that has no bearing on the
validity of a subpoena that is properly filed and served or
on the merits of Greenspon's litigation in Hawaii.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
Buy This Entire Record For