Christopher Michael Borchetta

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
In re: 	Case No. 25-12808-RAM
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BORCHETTA, 	Chapter 7
Debtor.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DIRECTING
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER COMPELLING RULE 2004 EXAMINATIONS VIA ZOOM
The issue presented in two pending motions for protective order is whether Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 45(c)(1)(A) precludes the Court from compelling two out-of-state, non-party
witnesses to appear for Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 examinations via Zoom where the
examinations will be conducted from locations within 100 miles of the witnesses’ residences.
The Court concludes it does not.
Limited Background and Procedural History
The Court conducted a hearing on October 16, 2025 on the Motion for Protective
Order and to Quash Subpoena to Non-Party Adelle Borchetta [DE# 58] (the “A. Borchetta
Robert A. Mark, Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court	_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on November 4, 2025.
Case 25-12808-RAM Doc 89 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 8

2
Motion”) filed by Adelle Borchetta (“Ms. Borchetta”) and the Motion for Protective Order and
to Quash Subpoena to Non-Party Andrew Fromm [DE# 69] (the “Fromm Motion” and
together with the A. Borchetta Motion, the “Motions for Protective Order”) filed by Andrew
Fromm (“Mr. Fromm” and together with Ms. Borchetta, the “Non-Party Witnesses”).
In the Motions for Protective Order, the Non-Party Witnesses seek, among other
things, an order protecting them from appearing for remote Rule 2004 examinations via
Zoom conducted by Scott Brown, as chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”). 	Following the
October 	16th 	hearing, 	the 	Court 	entered 	its 	Order 	Reserving 	Ruling 	and 	Directing
Supplemental Compliance [DE# 81] (the “Order Reserving Ruling”). 	That Order reserved
ruling on the Motions for Protective Order on the issue of remote Rule 2004 examinations
via Zoom. This Order rules on that issue.
Ms. Borchetta is the sister and business partner of Christopher Michael Borchetta
(the “Debtor”). 	Ms. Borchetta lives in Tennessee. 	Mr. Fromm is the Debtor’s business
partner. Mr. Fromm also lives in Tennessee. The Debtor, Ms. Borchetta, and Mr. Fromm
operated two rental properties in Puerto Rico. 	The real properties and assets (allegedly
including a container home and an airstream) were owned by two Puerto Rican entities. It
is unclear who owns the entities. The real properties and assets were allegedly sold prior
to the Debtor filing this bankruptcy case. The Trustee (and judgment creditor Scott Hankins)
are seeking discovery from the Non-Party Witnesses regarding the Puerto Rican entities,
the sale of assets, and the disposition of sale proceeds. 	Without question, the requested
discovery is relevant to the Debtor’s assets and financial affairs.
On July 10, 2025, the Trustee served the Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination
Duces Tecum on Ms. Borchetta and, on July 15, 2025, the Trustee served a Subpoena for
Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum on Mr. Fromm. See DE# 41 (copies of the
Case 25-12808-RAM Doc 89 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 8

3
subpoenas) and DE# 49 (proof of service). The subpoenas required document production
from Ms. Borchetta on August 12, 2025 and from Mr. Fromm on August 13, 2025. 	The
subpoenas also scheduled the remote Rule 2004 examination via Zoom of Ms. Borchetta
on August 14, 2025 and of Mr. Fromm on August 15, 2025. Neither Ms. Borchetta nor Mr.
Fromm produced any response or documents or appeared for their scheduled examination.
On September 5, 2025, after notice and a hearing in which the Non-Party Witnesses
failed to appear, the Court entered its Order Granting Motion to Compel Discovery [DE# 55]
(the “Order Compelling Discovery”). 	The Order Compelling Discovery required the Non-
Party Witnesses to produce documents by September 10, 2025 and rescheduled the remote
examination via Zoom of the Non-Party Witnesses for September 11, 2025.
On September 11, 2025, Ms. Borchetta filed the A. Borchetta Motion and Non-Party
Adella Borchetta’s Response to Request for Discovery [DE# 57]. On September 29, 2025,
Mr. Fromm filed the Fromm Motion and Non-Party Andrew Fromm’s Response to Request
for Discovery [DE# 70]. 	Also on September 29, 2025, counsel appeared on behalf of the
Non-Party Witnesses. See DE# 68 (notice of appearance). 	On September 30, 2025, the
Non-Party Witnesses filed affidavits in support of the Motions for Protective Order. See
DE#’s 75 and 76.1
Discussion
In the Motions for Protective Order, the Non-Party Witnesses argue that, because
they are residents of Tennessee, they are protected from appearing for remote Rule 2004
1 This Order does not address document production because the Non-Party Witnesses did not raise a Rule
45(c) 100-mile objection to producing documents to the Trustee in this forum. To be clear, the Court’s Order
Reserving Ruling, entered after counsel’s appearance on behalf of the Non-Party Witnesses, directs final
compliance by the Non-Party Witnesses with the Trustee’s requests for production of documents.
Case 25-12808-RAM Doc 89 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 8

4
examination by the 100-mile geographic limitation set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(a),
made applicable here by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016.
The subpoenas were properly served on the Non-Party Witnesses and the Order
Compelling Discovery predates the Motions for Protective Order. The Non-Party Witnesses’
objection based on the 100-mile geographic limitation could be viewed as untimely and thus
waived. 	Indeed, the Trustee advanced such argument at the October 16th hearing.
However, the Court is not basing its ruling on waiver because, on the merits, the Court
concludes that the remote Rule 2004 examinations via Zoom are authorized by Rule
45(c)(1)(A).
Rule 45(c)(1)(A) provides that a subpoena may command a person’s attendance at
a deposition “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly
transacts business in person[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A). The text focuses on the place
of compliance for the witness, not the location of the court, the noticing party, or counsel.
See Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Target Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31755 at *12-13,
2021 WL 672990 (D. Minn. Feb. 22, 2021). When testimony is taken by remote means, the
witness 	“attends” 	from 	the 	location 	where 	the 	witness 	appears 	and 	participates.
Accordingly, if a subpoena provides for a witness to appear for examination remotely by
Zoom from a location within 100 miles of where the witness resides, is employed, or
regularly transacts business in person, the subpoena complies with Rule 45(c)(1)(A). This
result does not change if the court or counsel conducting the examination are situated
beyond the 100-mile geographic limitation. See U.S. v. $110,000 in U.S. Currency, 2021
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108951, 2021 WL 2376019, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2021) (citing Rule
45(c) advisory committee’s note to 2013 amendment and stating that “Rule 45(c)’s
geographic limits were crafted to protect third parties from the undue burden of traveling
Case 25-12808-RAM Doc 89 Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 8

5
more than 100 miles to provide testimony or produce documents in a proceeding to which
they are not a party.”).
This interpretation is supported by the growing body of authority addressing remote
testimony in the post-Covid environment. In In re Combs, the bankruptcy court held, in the
Rule 2004 context, that Rule 45(c) is satisfied where the non-party witness appears
remotely from a location within 100 miles of the witness’s residence. In re Combs, 668 B.R.
896, 901-02 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2025) (“Because [the non-debtor witness] can attend her Rule
2004 Exam virtually in any location she desires, the issue of distance is within her control.”);
see Int’l Seaway Trading Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31755 at *13 (“Virtual attendance . .
. is consistent with the plain language of Rule 45(c)(1)(A) because he has been commanded
to attend the deposition within 100 miles of where he resides.”); In re Newbrook Shipping
Corp., 498 F. Supp. 3d 807, 815 (D. Md. 2020), vacated and remanded on other grounds,
31 F.4th 889, 891 (4th Cir. 2022) (“Given the modification of the deposition notice to provide
for a remote deposition over Zoom or other teleconferencing platform, the deposition notice
no longer requires [the non-party witnesses] to travel more than 100 miles (or at all) to
comply, so the Court declines to address [the non-party witness’s] argument that the
subpoena compels [the non-party witness] to comply outside of the geographical bounds of
Rule 45(c).”).
Other recent cases reached the same conclusion. In the multidistrict litigation In re
3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation (“3M Combat Arms”), the magistrate
judge held that Rule 45(c)’s 100-mile geographic limitation is honored for remote trial
testimony “by contemporaneous transmission” when the witness appears from within the
100-mile radius, notwithstanding the court or counsel’s more distant locations. In re 3M
Combat Arms, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121444 at *13-14, 2021 WL 2605957 (N.D. Fla. May
Case 25-12808-RAM Doc 89 Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 8

6
28, 2021) (“The Court concludes that a party may use a Rule 45 subpoena to compel remote
testimony by a witness from anywhere so long as the place of compliance (where the
testimony will be given by the witness and not where the trial will take place) is within the
geographic limitations of Rule 45(c).”). 	The Court finds the decisions in Combs and 3M
Combat Arms persuasive and adopts their reasoning here.
The Non-Party Witnesses argue that a remote Rule 2004 examination “occurs”
where the court or the noticing party is located, rendering any Zoom appearance per se
noncompliant if that forum is more than 100 miles away from where the witness resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person. 	Rule 45(c)(1)(A) contains no such
forum-centric requirement. 	Its plain language ties the place of compliance to where the
witness will attend. 	By conditioning the Rule 2004 examinations so that each witness
appears remotely by Zoom from a location within 100 miles of where that witness resides,
is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, the examinations comply with Rule
45(c)(1)(A).
The Court declines to follow In re Larosa, 2025 Bankr. LEXIS 901, 2025 WL 1024712
(Bankr. M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2025), cited by the Non-Party Witnesses’ counsel at the October
16th hearing, and other cases cited by the Non-Party Witnesses in the Motions for Protective
Order. In Larosa, a creditor sought Rule 2004 discovery from the debtor’s future mother-in-
law who resided in Alabama. Id. at *1-2. The creditor’s subpoena listed the location of the
Rule 2004 examination as Zoom and the place the produce documents as Miami, Florida.
Id. at *2-3. The non-party witness failed to produce the requested documents and failed to
appear at her Rule 2004 examination via Zoom. Id. at *2. The creditor filed a motion to
compel compliance with the subpoena and the non-party witness appeared at the hearing
on the motion to compel and objected. Id. at *1. 	The bankruptcy court concluded that the
Case 25-12808-RAM Doc 89 Filed 11/04/25 Page 6 of 8

7
place of compliance with a subpoena must be a physical location and not Zoom or other
videoconferencing methods for taking depositions, id. at *3 and n.9, and ruled that
“[b]ecause the subpoena simply directed [the non-party witness] to attend the Rule 2004
examination via Zoom, it does not comply with Rule 45, and the Court will not compel [the
non-party witness’s] compliance or sanction her [for] failure to attend the Rule 2004
examination.” Id. at 3-4. 	The court also “note[d] that if [the creditor] tries to serve another
subpoena duces tecum on [the non-party witness] in compliance with Rule 45, the place of
compliance for both the Rule 2004 examination and production of documents will lie outside
of this district.” Id. at *4.
The Court disagrees with the conclusion in Larosa and cases cited in that opinion.
Instead, and as discussed earlier, the Court concludes that a Zoom examination from a
location within 100 miles of where a witness resides is an appropriate place of compliance.
The Court also disagrees with Larosa’s conclusion that compliance with subpoenas must
be obtained where the witness resides, particularly where, as here, the Motions for
Protective Order did not argue that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the underlying
motion to compel and the Court has already entered its Order Compelling Discovery.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	The Motions for Protective Order [DE#’s 58 and 69] are denied.
2. 	The Court’s Order Compelling Discovery [DE# 55] remains in full force and
effect. 	The Trustee may conduct the Rule 2004 examinations of Ms. Borchetta and Mr.
Fromm remotely via Zoom, provided that each witness appears from a location of the
witness’ choosing that is within 100 miles of where the witness resides, is employed, or
regularly transacts business in person, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A).
Case 25-12808-RAM Doc 89 Filed 11/04/25 Page 7 of 8

8
3. 	Within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order, counsel for the Trustee and
the Non-Party Witnesses shall confer and select mutually agreeable dates and times for the
Zoom examinations. Unless the parties agree to a later date, the examinations must occur
no later than December 1, 2025. 	If no agreement is reached, the Trustee may notice the
examinations via Zoom on not less than fourteen (14) days’ written notice consistent with
this Order.
###
Copies to:
Stephen C. Breuer, Esq.
Breuer Law, PLLC
6501 Congress Ave., Suite 240
Boca Raton, Florida 33487
Special Counsel for the Trustee and
Counsel for Scott Hankens
Matthew Ramenda, Esq.
Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L.
2255 Glades Road, Suite 200-E
Boca Raton, Florida 33431
Counsel for Andrew Fromm and Adele Borchetta
Kathe Kozlowski, Esq.
Kathe Kozlowski LLC
P.O. Box 1364
DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435
Counsel for the Debtor
Case 25-12808-RAM Doc 89 Filed 11/04/25 Page 8 of 8