Banco Master, S.A. and Master SA Corretora De Cambio, Titulos e Valores M

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
In re:
BANCO MASTER, S.A., 	Case No. 25-24568-SMG
BANCO LETSBANK, S.A.,
BANCO MASTER DE INVESTIMENTOS, S.A., 	Chapter 15
and MASTER S/A CORRETORA DE CÂMBIO,
TÍTULOS E VALORES MOBILIÁRIOS,
Debtors in a Foreign Proceeding.
___________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DANIEL
VORCARO’S MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO LIMIT OR
PROHIBIT RULE 2004 EXAMINATION SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM
Daniel Vorcaro – a controlling shareholder and former administrator for
chapter 15 debtors Banco Master, S.A., Banco LetsBank, S.A., Banco Master de
Investimentos, 	S.A., 	and 	Master 	S/A 	Corretora 	de 	Câmbio, 	Títulos 	e 	Valores
Mobiliários, who are subject to the extrajudicial liquidation proceeding pending
before the Central Bank of Brazil under proceeding number PE 258696 – filed two
Scott M. Grossman, Chief Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court	_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 6, 2026.
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 17

2
motions for protective order1 under Local Rule 2004-1(C) challenging 28 Notices of
Taking Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum2 served by EFB Regimes Especiais de
Empresas, Ltda., represented by Eduardo Felix Bianchini, as the extrajudicial
liquidator (the Foreign Representative) of the debtors. Upon consideration of the
motions 	for 	protective 	order, 	the 	Foreign 	Representative’s 	response,3 	the
supplemental briefs filed by both parties,4 the arguments of counsel at the March 4,
2026 hearing,5 and the record in this case, for the reasons that follow, the Court will
grant in part and deny in part Mr. Vorcaro’s motions.
Relevant Background
On December 10, 2025, the Foreign Representative filed a petition seeking
recognition of the debtors’ Brazilian liquidation proceeding.6 After a hearing at which
only Mr. Vorcaro contested recognition, on January 8, 2026, the Court entered an
order under 11 U.S.C. § 1517 recognizing the Brazilian liquidation proceeding.7 In its
recognition order, the Court authorized the Foreign Representative “to examine
witnesses, take evidence or seek the delivery of information concerning the assets,
affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities of the Debtors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
1521(a)(4), the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including without limitation
1 Dkt. Nos. 47, 55.
2 Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54.
3 Dkt. No. 63.
4 Dkt. Nos. 73, 74, 78.
5 Dkt. No. 71.
6 Dkt. No. 1.
7 Dkt. No. 23.
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 17

3
the procedure of [Federal] Rule [of Bankruptcy Procedure] 2004 and Local Rule 2004-
1, without further order of this Court.”8
From 	January 	29, 	2026 	through 	February 	19, 	2026, 	the 	Foreign
Representative issued 28 subpoenas to entities seeking discovery under Federal Rule
of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004. These subpoenas seek discovery from art dealers,
luxury retailers, and others with respect to both the debtors and sixteen other entities
– including Mr. Vorcaro – defined as the “Asset Freeze Parties.”9 Under Brazilian
law, these parties are subject to one or more of automatic asset freeze orders entered
by 	the 	Central 	Bank 	of 	Brazil 	in 	connection 	with 	the 	debtors’ 	extrajudicial
liquidation. Mr. Vorcaro objects to the subpoenas, arguing that they are contrary to
the purpose of chapter 15, they are overly broad and improper under Rule 2004, and
that good cause exists to modify their scope to exclude inquiry into Mr. Vorcaro’s
personal affairs.10 With respect to two of the subpoenas, Mr. Vorcaro – who is not the
subpoenaed party – argues that those subpoenas violate Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45(c)(2)(A)’s requirement that a subpoena not command the production of
documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible things at a place more
than 100 miles from where the subpoenaed party resides.
The Foreign Representative argues in response that the subpoenas are within
the scope of Rule 2004, that Mr. Vorcaro generally lacks standing to object to the
subpoenas or if he has standing, that he has failed to identify any cognizable privacy
8 Id.
9 See Dkt. No. 2, at 26–41.
10 Dkt. Nos. 47, 55.
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 17

4
interest he seeks to protect, and that Mr. Vorcaro fails to identify sufficient good cause
to modify the subpoenas. The Court scheduled a hearing on Mr. Vorcaro’s motions for
protective order for March 4, 2026.11
Two days before the hearing – on March 2, 2026 – the Foreign Representative
filed a complaint in this Court against one of the subpoenaed parties – Sozo Real
Estate Inc.12 – together with Henrique M. Vorcaro (Mr. Vorcaro’s father), and Natalia
Vorcaro Zettel (Mr. Vorcaro’s sister).13 The complaint asserts claims for constructive
trust, equitable lien, and avoidance of certain transactions under the Brazilian Civil
Code related to Sozo’s purchase of real property in Windermere, Florida.14 Based on
the filing of this complaint, at the March 4 hearing, Mr. Vorcaro also argued that the
“pending proceeding rule” – which holds that “once an adversary proceeding or
contested matter has been commenced, discovery is made pursuant to the Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 7026 et seq., rather than by a Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004 examination”15 – bars
the discovery sought in the Rule 2004 subpoenas.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 provides in relevant part that:
(a) 	In General. On a party in interest’s motion, the court may order the
examination of any entity.
11 Dkt. Nos. 48, 56.
12 Dkt. No. 46.
13 Adv. No. 26-1074-SMG (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2026).
14 Id. at Dkt. No. 1.
15 In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing Intercontinental
Enters., Inc. v. Keller (In re Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc.), 127 B.R. 267, 274 (D. Colo. 1991); In re
Valley Forge Plaza Assocs., 109 B.R. 669, 674–75 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1990); In re Bakalis, 199 B.R. 443,
447–48 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1996); In re Ecam Publ’ns, Inc., 131 B.R. 556, 559 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991);
First Fin. Sav. Assoc. v. Kipp (In re Kipp), 86 B.R. 490, 491 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1988)).
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 17

5
(b) 	Scope of the Examination.
(1) 	In General. The examination of an entity under this Rule 2004,
or of a debtor under §343, may relate only to:
(A) 	the debtor’s acts, conduct, or property;
(B) 	the debtor’s liabilities and financial condition;
(C) 	any matter that may affect the administration of the
debtor’s estate; or
(D) 	the debtor’s right to a discharge.
As written, Rule 2004 requires a party to first move for authority to conduct the
examination. Under Local Rule 2004-1, however, in this district, a party can seek
Rule 2004 discovery without prior court authority. The caveat is that under Local
Rule 2004-1(C) any interested party may then move for a protective order, and that
motion stays the examination until the Court rules on it.
Under the local rule, the movant seeking a protective order must state the
reasons for prohibiting, limiting, or rescheduling the examination. This procedural
mechanism, however, does not relieve the party seeking to conduct the Rule 2004
examination of its initial burden to demonstrate that the information sought falls
within the permissible scope of Rule 2004. That burden remains with the party
seeking the examination – in this case, the Foreign Representative – to establish that
it is entitled to conduct the examination in the first instance. Only after that
threshold showing is made does the burden shift to the movant to demonstrate that
a protective order is warranted.
I. 	Standing.
Before 	addressing 	the 	merits, 	the 	Foreign 	Representative 	argues 	that
Mr. Vorcaro – as a non-subpoenaed party – lacks standing to raise relevance or
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 5 of 17

6
burden objections to subpoenas directed to third parties.16 To rule on his motions for
protective order in this instance, however, the Court can assume – without deciding
– that Mr. Vorcaro has standing to object to the subpoenas. This is because the Court
will be denying most of the relief he seeks on the merits. And as to the limited basis
on which the Court will be granting a protective order, the Court is doing so of its
own volition based on the due process concerns discussed below and not necessarily
because Mr. Vorcaro raised it.
II. 	Merits.
The Court next considers whether the Foreign Representative has established
that it is entitled to conduct the examinations. The scope of Rule 2004 discovery is
“unfettered and broad.”17 As explained by Judge Walrath in In re Washington Mutual,
Inc.:18
A Rule 2004 examination is commonly recognized as more in the nature
of a fishing expedition. The purpose of the examination is to enable the
trustee to discover the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate.
Legitimate goals of Rule 2004 examinations include discovering assets,
examining 	transactions, 	and determining 	whether wrongdoing 	has
occurred. 	There 	are, 	however, 	limits 	to 	the 	use 	of 	Rule 	2004
examinations. It may not be used for purposes of abuse or harassment
and it cannot stray into matters which are not relevant to the basic
inquiry.19
16 Dkt. No. 63, at 2, 6–9.
17 Bennett Funding Grp., 203 B.R. at 28 (quoting In re GHR Energy Corp., 33 B.R. 451, 453 (Bankr. D.
Mass. 1983)); cf. In re Foerst, 93 F. 190, 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1899) (“In general, a large latitude of inquiry
should be allowed in the examination of persons closely connected with the bankrupt in business
dealings, or otherwise, for the purpose of discovering assets and unearthing frauds, upon any
reasonable surmise that they have assets of the debtor.”).
18 408 B.R. 45 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009).
19 Id. at 50 (cleaned up; internal citations omitted).
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 6 of 17

7
The availability of this “unfettered and broad” discovery is an important tool in
implementing the statutory purpose of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border
Insolvency, which has been adopted by over 60 countries,20 including the United
States which incorporated it as chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Under 11 U.S.C.
§ 1501:
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to incorporate the Model Law on Cross-
Border Insolvency so as to provide effective mechanisms for dealing with
cases of cross-border insolvency with the objectives of—
(1) cooperation between—
(A) courts of the United States, United States trustees,
trustees, examiners, debtors, and debtors in possession;
and
(B) the courts and other competent authorities of foreign
countries involved in cross-border insolvency cases;
(2) greater legal certainty for trade and investment;
(3) fair and efficient administration of cross-border insolvencies
that protects the interests of all creditors, and other interested
entities, including the debtor;
(4) protection and maximization of the value of the debtor’s assets;
and
(5) facilitation of the rescue of financially troubled businesses,
thereby protecting investment and preserving employment.
As Judge Tjoflat explained in his erudite concurrence in In re Al Zawawi,21 among
other objectives, “‘[t]he cross-border cooperation mechanisms established by the
Model Law are designed to confront’ the ‘increasing problem’ of ‘[f]raud by insolvent
20 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Status: UNCITRAL Model
Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997), https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency/modellaw/cross-
border_insolvency/status (last visited Apr. 6, 2026).
21 97 F.4th 1244, 1257–77 (11th Cir. 2024) (Tjoflat, J., concurring).
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 7 of 17

8
debtors, 	in 	particular 	by 	concealing 	assets 	or 	transferring 	them 	to 	foreign
jurisdictions.’”22 Consistent with both the statutory purpose of chapter 15, as well as
its goals as described by Judge Tjoflat, in its recognition order the Court authorized
the Foreign Representative under 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4) to seek testimony, evidence,
and information concerning the debtors’ financial condition and related matters.23
The subpoenas here seek discovery from art dealers, luxury retailers, and other
entities with respect to assets and transactions involving both the debtors and the
Asset Freeze Parties. These requests are grounded in Brazilian law governing
extrajudicial liquidation proceedings and are consistent with the basic inquiries
permitted under chapter 15 and Rule 2004. Article 36 of Brazilian Law No. 6,02424
provides that, upon the commencement of a financial institution’s extrajudicial
liquidation proceeding, the assets of managers of the financial institution, and in
certain 	circumstances 	other related 	persons, 	are rendered 	inalienable 	pending
investigation and liquidation of liabilities. The asset freeze can also be extended to
individuals who contributed to the institution’s financial condition and to persons
who acquired assets under circumstances suggesting an effort to evade the law.
Article 	2 	of 	Brazilian 	Law 	No. 	9,44725 then 	makes 	those 	same 	inalienability
restrictions applicable to persons or entities that directly or indirectly control the
financial institution. In other words, Brazilian law extends the asset freeze beyond
22 Id. at 1262 (quoting Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-
Border 	Insolvency, 	UNITED 	NATIONS 	C OMMISSION 	O N 	I NTERNATIONAL 	T RADE 	LAW ,
UNCITRAL M ODEL LAW 	O N 	C ROSS -B ORDER 	I NSOLVENCY 	(1997), 	¶ 	6
https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency/modellaw/cross-border_insolvency).
23 Dkt. No. 23, ¶ 8.
24 Braz. Law No. 6,024, of Mar. 13, 1974, art. 36.
25 Braz. Law No. 9,447, of Mar. 14, 1997, art. 2.
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 8 of 17

9
formal insiders to include controlling parties and affiliated entities whose assets may
bear a direct relationship to the debtors’ financial affairs.
These provisions of Brazilian law – together with the provisions and purpose
of chapter 15 – justify the discovery sought by the Foreign Representative. Brazilian
law identifies the Asset Freeze Parties as individuals and entities whose assets may
be intertwined with, derived from, or otherwise related to the debtors’ liabilities and
estates. That statutory framework aligns with the objectives of chapter 15, which
include 	protecting 	the 	interests 	of 	creditors 	and 	other 	interested 	parties 	and
maximizing the value of the debtors’ assets, as well as addressing the risk that assets
may be concealed or transferred beyond the reach of creditors. Consistent with those
objectives, section 1521(a)(4) expressly authorizes a court, upon recognition, to permit
the examination of witnesses and the taking of evidence concerning the debtor’s
assets, affairs, and financial condition. The Court’s recognition order in this case
granted that relief and authorized the Foreign Representative to conduct discovery
under Rule 2004. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the discovery sought here
falls well within the broad scope of Rule 2004.
To the extent Mr. Vorcaro argues that the Foreign Representative must first
show some evidence of dissipation or diversion of assets before it can take this
discovery, neither the text nor the scope of Rule 2004 supports this position.26
26 This position, if adopted, would create a circular conundrum. Mr. Vorcaro argues that the Foreign
Representative first must establish that there was misconduct before it can take discovery, but the
Foreign Representative argues that it needs discovery to first determine whether there was
misconduct. The Foreign Representative’s position prevails. “One of the primary purposes of a Rule
2004 examination is as a pre-litigation device.” Washington Mut., 408 B.R. at 53 (citing In re Table
Talk, Inc., 51 B.R. 143, 145–46 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1985)) (emphasis added). If the Foreign
Representative already had sufficient evidence of misconduct, it would not need Rule 2004 discovery
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 9 of 17

10
Nothing in Rule 2004 limits the examination to confirming already-established
misconduct. To the contrary, Rule 2004 permits a thorough investigation that may
lead to the discovery of assets, financial information, or other matters relevant to the
administration of the estate, including “whether wrongdoing has occurred.”27 Given
the breadth of Rule 2004 – including its use of the permissive term “may” in
authorizing inquiry into “any matter that may affect the administration of the
debtor’s estate”28 – the Court concludes that the subpoenas fall well within the rule’s
expansive scope.
With the Foreign Representative having met its burden of demonstrating that
the requested discovery falls within the scope of Rule 2004, the burden then shifts to
Mr. Vorcaro under Local Rule 2004-1(C) to show why the examination should be
prohibited or limited. Mr. Vorcaro asserts that the examination would violate
protected privacy rights. When pressed at the hearing, however, as to what specific
privacy rights he was asserting, his attorney identified only general privacy rights
under the Florida Constitution – without explaining how those rights would be
properly invoked by Mr. Vorcaro, who appears to be a Brazilian national – and
referenced 	Brazil’s 	banking 	secrecy 	laws, 	again 	without 	establishing 	their
applicability in this context. Mr. Vorcaro also expressed concern that the examination
is effectively morphing into premature post-judgment asset discovery. Rule 2004,
however, is expressly designed to permit a broad investigation that may lead to the
and could simply file a complaint. To require the Foreign Representative to first establish that there
was wrongdoing before being permitted this discovery puts the proverbial cart before the horse.
27 408 B.R. at 50.
28 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)(1)(C).
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 10 of 17

11
discovery of assets or other matters relevant to the administration of the estate.
Simply put, as far as scope, Mr. Vorcaro has not carried his burden of demonstrating
that a protective order is warranted.
III. 	The Pending Proceeding Rule.
One limitation on Rule 2004 discovery, however, is the pending proceeding
rule, which applies when Rule 2004 discovery is sought in “the shadow of pending
adversary proceedings or litigation in other forums.”29 Under this “well recognized
rule,”30 once an adversary proceeding or contested matter has been commenced,
discovery must be conducted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26–3731 rather
than under Rule 2004. “The basis for the prohibition lies in the distinction between
the broad fishing expedition-like nature of the Rule 2004 exam . . . and the more
restrictive nature of discovery under FED. R. BANKR. P. 7026–7037.”32 Thus, “courts
have expressed concern that Rule 2004 examinations not be used as a tactic to
circumvent the safeguards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”33
29 Washington Mut., 408 B.R. at 50.
30 Bennett Funding Grp., 203 B.R. at 28.
31 Made applicable in adversary proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7026–37 and
in contested matters by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014(c). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026–
37, 9014.
32 In re 2435 Plainfield Ave., Inc., 223 B.R. 440, 456 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1998); see also In re Drexel Burnham
Lambert Grp., 123 B.R. 702, 711 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (“Rule 2004 discovery is broader than
discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and has fewer procedural safeguards.”). Compare
Bakalis, 199 B.R. at 447 (stating that a Rule 2004 examination is a broad “fishing expedition”), In re
Wilcher, 56 B.R. 428, 434 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985) (same), and In re Johns–Manville Corp., 42 B.R. 362,
364 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (same), with In re Dinubilo, 177 B.R. 932, 940 n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1993) (“Discovery
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers: notice to every party of the intention to depose any
person; a right to have counsel present; all objections must be noted; cross examination is permitted.”);
William L. Norton, Jr., 2 N ORTON B ANKRUPTCY LAW AND PRACTICE § 30:1 (2d ed. 1998) (“Discovery
rules are much more stringent since any person has the right to have counsel present and all rules of
evidence apply . . .”).
33 In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, 841 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing 2435 Plainfield Ave., 223 B.R.
at 456; Bennett Funding Grp., 203 B.R. at 28; Valley Forge Plaza, 109 B.R. at 675).
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 11 of 17

12
Again, as Judge Walrath explained in Washington Mutual:
The reasons supporting these restrictions on the use of Rule 2004
examinations are twofold. First, the discovery rules apply both in
adversary proceedings and contested matters. Furthermore, a Rule 2004
examination does not provide the same procedural safeguards as Rule
7026. For example, a witness has no general right to representation by
counsel during a deposition, and the right to object to immaterial or
improper questions is limited.
* * *
The primary concern of courts is the use of Rule 2004 examinations to
circumvent the safeguards and protections of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Yet aggressive application of the “pending proceeding” rule
may prevent legitimate Rule 2004 examinations on matters wholly
unrelated to the pending proceeding, thereby interfering with the
trustee’s fiduciary duty to maximize estate assets.34
The mere pendency of litigation, however, does not necessarily bring all Rule 2004
discovery to a halt. Rather, as explained by Judge Gerling in Bennett Funding
Group:35
Discovery 	of 	evidence 	related 	to 	the 	pending 	proceeding 	must 	be
accomplished in accord with more restrictive provisions of Fed. R.
Bankr. P., . . . while unrelated discovery should not be subject to those
rules simply because there is an adversary proceeding pending. . . . Thus
a trustee, like a creditor, must look to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7026 et seq. after
an adversary proceeding is commenced for discovery as to both entities
affected by the proceeding and issues addressed in the proceeding.36
34 408 B.R. at 50–51 (cleaned up; internal citations omitted). See also Bennett Funding Grp., 203 B.R.
at 29 (noting that precluding the use of the 2004 examination device when any adversary proceeding
has been commenced would allow entities unaffected by the proceeding to avoid examination); Drexel
Burnham, 123 B.R. at 708 (“A trustee in bankruptcy . . . is under a duty to maximize the realization
of estate liquidation.”).
35 203 B.R. 24.
36 Id. at 29 (cleaned up; internal citations omitted). See also In re Buick, 174 B.R. 299, 305 (Bankr. D.
Colo. 1994) (noting that “even after the trustee has commenced adversary proceeding(s), the trustee
may conduct Rule 2004 examinations of entities which are not parties to or are not affected by the
pending adversary proceeding(s).”); Blinder, Robinson, 127 B.R. at 275 (“Entities not affected by the
adversary proceeding do not require the greater protections afforded under the Federal Rules, and the
Trustee should be permitted to examine them under Rule 2004.”); In re Int’l Fibercom, Inc., 283 B.R.
290, 292 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2002) (“Consequently when the Rule 2004 examination relates not to the
pending adversary litigation, but to another matter, the ‘pending proceeding’ rule does not apply.”); In
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 12 of 17

13
As acknowledged by the Foreign Representative in its supplemental brief,37 four of
the subpoenas seek discovery with respect to the Windermere property that is the
subject of the Foreign Representative’s complaint – those issued to Winter Park
National Bank;38 to Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A.;39
to Erik Magno;40 and to Sozo Real Estate, Inc.41 Under the pending proceeding rule,
the discovery sought through these subpoenas must now be sought in the adversary
proceeding under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7026–37.
To the extent the Foreign Representative argues that the pending proceeding
rule is not properly raised by Mr. Vorcaro because he is not a defendant in the related
adversary 	proceeding,42 	the 	Court 	need 	not 	resolve 	that 	issue. 	The 	pending
proceeding rule serves important due process and procedural fairness interests,
including 	ensuring 	that 	discovery 	proceeds 	within 	the 	structured 	framework
applicable to pending litigation. These protections are not dependent on which party
raises the issue. The Court will therefore apply and enforce the pending proceeding
rule here, notwithstanding that Mr. Vorcaro raised it.
To that end, the Court disagrees with the Foreign Representative’s argument43
that the pending proceeding rule does not apply when the Rule 2004 discovery was
re M4 Enters., Inc., 190 B.R. 471, 475 n. 4 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1995) (finding that the 2004 examination
did not relate to the pending adversary proceeding and thus the “pending proceeding” rule did not
apply).
37 Dkt. No. 74, at 9.
38 Dkt. No. 43.
39 Dkt. No. 44.
40 Dkt. No. 45.
41 Dkt. No. 46.
42 Dkt. No. 74, at 7–9.
43 Dkt. No. 74, at 9.
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 13 of 17

14
issued before commencement of the related litigation. The pending proceeding rule is
grounded in preventing parties from using the broad and flexible scope of Rule 2004
to circumvent the more restrictive discovery framework that governs adversary
proceedings and contested matters. That concern does not disappear merely because
the Rule 2004 request was served before litigation formally commenced.
When applying the pending proceeding rule, the focus is whether the discovery
sought concerns the same subject matter as the later-filed litigation and whether
allowing the examination to proceed would effectively permit an end-run around the
procedural safeguards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If the issues overlap,
rigidly adhering to a “first-served” timing rule would elevate form over substance and
invite strategic behavior that might encourage parties to issue sweeping Rule 2004
subpoenas in anticipation of litigation to secure broader discovery than would
otherwise be permitted.
Once litigation has commenced, the rationale for limiting Rule 2004 discovery
becomes 	paramount. 	At 	that 	point, 	the 	parties 	are 	entitled 	to 	the 	structure,
protections, and judicial oversight that accompany discovery under Part VII of the
Bankruptcy Rules, including relevance limitations, proportionality considerations,
and the availability of objections under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through
37. Allowing a previously requested Rule 2004 examination to proceed unchecked in
parallel with an adversary proceeding risks undermining that framework and
creating inconsistent discovery standards within the same dispute. Accordingly, the
better-reasoned approach is to apply the pending proceeding rule based on the
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 14 of 17

15
existence of related litigation at the time the Court is asked to enforce or limit the
Rule 2004 discovery, not merely at the time the subpoena was issued. The Court will
therefore grant Mr. Vorcaro’s motion for protective order with respect to the Winter
Park National Bank;44 Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth,
P.A.;45 Erik Magno;46 and Sozo Real Estate, Inc.47 Rule 2004 subpoenas.
As for the other 24 subpoenas, the discovery sought falls well within the scope
of Rule 2004 and is consistent with the relief granted to the Foreign Representative
in the recognition order under 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4).48 Mr. Vorcaro’s motions for
protective order will therefore be denied as to those 24 subpoenas.49
IV. 	Rule 45’s Geographic Limits.
Finally, Mr. Vorcaro objects to two of the subpoenas based on Rule 45(c)(2)(A)’s
requirement 	that 	a 	subpoena 	not 	command 	the 	production 	of 	documents,
electronically stored information, or other tangible things at a place more than 100
miles from where the subpoenaed party resides. The Bank of New York Mellon –
which is one of the subpoenaed parties50 – filed a limited joinder in Mr. Vorcaro’s
motion, solely as to the 100-mile issue.51 As to the other subpoenaed party on whose
behalf Mr. Vorcaro objects – Kodiak Trust Co.52 – the issue is moot because the
44 Dkt. No. 43.
45 Dkt. No. 44.
46 Dkt. No. 45.
47 Dkt. No. 46.
48 Dkt. No. 23.
49 Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54.
50 Dkt. No. 53.
51 Dkt. No. 67.
52 Dkt. No. 52.
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 15 of 17

16
Foreign Representative has issued a replacement subpoena.53 With respect to Bank
of New York Mellon, however, the objection is well-taken, and the request for a
protective order based on Rule 45(c)(2)(A)’s geographic limits54 will be granted.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
1. 	Mr. Vorcaro’s motions for protective order55 are GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth herein.
2. 	Mr. Vorcaro’s motion for protective order56 is GRANTED as to the
following Notices of Taking Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum:
• 	Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum of Winter Park
National Bank;57
• 	Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum of Dean,
Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A.;58
• 	Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum of Erik
Magno;59 and
• 	Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum of Sozo Real
Estate, Inc.60
The discovery sought in these subpoenas must instead be sought in Adversary
Proceeding No. 26-1074, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26–37, made
applicable by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7026–7037.
53 Dkt. No. 54.
54 Dkt. No. 67.
55 Dkt. Nos. 47, 55.
56 Dkt. No. 47.
57 Dkt. No. 43.
58 Dkt. No. 44.
59 Dkt. No. 45.
60 Dkt. No. 46.
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 16 of 17

17
3. 	Bank of New York Mellon’s limited joinder61 in Mr. Vorcaro’s motion for
protective order62 as to the Notice of Taking Rule 2004 Examination Duces Tecum of
The Bank of New York Mellon63 is GRANTED. To the extent this subpoena seeks the
production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things at a
place more than 100 miles from where Bank of New York Mellon resides or regularly
transacts business in person, the subpoena is QUASHED, without prejudice to the
Foreign Representative reissuing a subpoena that complies with the geographic
limits of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, made applicable by Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure 2004(c) and 9016.
4. 	With respect to the remainder of the Rule 2004 discovery as to which
Mr. Vorcaro has sought a protective order, his motions64 are DENIED.
# # #
Copies furnished to all counsel of record via CM/ECF.
61 Dkt. No. 67.
62 Dkt. No. 55.
63 Dkt. No. 53.
64 Dkt. Nos. 47, 55.
Case 25-24568-SMG Doc 79 Filed 04/06/26 Page 17 of 17