Bourbiaux v Probst

Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on May 6, 2026

Index No. 651161/2025

Robert R. Reed, J.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 91 were read on this motion to/for CONTEMPT.

This action arises from a partnership dispute over alleged asset diversions and operating agreement violations. On March 3, 2025, plaintiffs commenced this action, asserting direct and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, an accounting, unjust enrichment, conversion, declaratory judgment, and unpaid wages under New York Labor Law.

In motion sequence no. 001, plaintiffs moved, by order to show cause, for a TRO and other injunctive relief. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, to restrain defendants from amending the Bordelle Operating Agreement and forcing a sale of plaintiff Bourbiaux's interest in Bordelle. The parties resolved motion sequence no. 001 by stipulation, which was so-ordered by the court on April 18, 2025 (NYSCEF doc. no. 48). In exchange for plaintiffs' withdrawal of motion sequence no. 001, and subject to a previously executed confidentiality agreement, defendants agreed to provide plaintiffs with various business and financial records within 90 days of the stipulation being so-ordered (id. at pg. 3, ¶c).

In motion sequence no. 003, plaintiffs move, by order to show cause, for an order holding defendants Theliau Probst and Thibaut Castet, and their attorneys, in civil contempt of court pursuant to Judiciary Law §753(A)(3), §756, and §773; or, alternatively, imposing monetary or other discretionary sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 for willful disobedience of a judicial order. Plaintiffs assert defendants violated the court's order by failing to complete production of various categories of financial records by July 17, 2025, despite demands for compliance with the so-ordered stipulation dated April 18, 2025. Plaintiffs argue that the alleged noncompliance impairs their ability to prosecute their case because plaintiffs cannot properly quantify damages or accurately value their ownership interests without such disclosure. Defendants contend that they have produced all responsive documents in their possession and that plaintiffs failed to meet and [*2]confer in good faith on issues regarding the production, as required by 22 NYCRR 202.7.

"A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" (Chambers v Old Stone Hill Road Associates, 66 AD3d 944, 946 [2d Dept 2009]). "To sustain a finding of civil contempt, a court must find that the alleged contemnor violated a lawful order which clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate, and that, as a result of the violation, a right or remedy of a party to the litigation was prejudiced" (Philie v Singer, 79 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2d Dept 2010], citing Judiciary Law §753[A][3]). "It is not necessary that the disobedience be deliberate or willful; rather, the mere act of disobedience, regardless of its motive, is sufficient if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes, or prejudices the rights or remedies of a party" (id.).

Here, plaintiffs seek relief that is more appropriately addressed through ordinary discovery. As plaintiffs' own moving papers reflect, counsel exchanged emails in which plaintiffs requested either responsive documents or a sworn statement from defendants confirming that specific items are not within their possession, custody, or control. Whether plaintiffs seek to compel documents or such a sworn statement, those disputes are for the court to resolve in the ordinary course of discovery. Considering that no preliminary conference has been held in this case and no discovery demands have been issued, the court will schedule a conference pursuant to Part 43 — Practice Rules and Procedures 7(d) and Commercial Division Rule 14.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for an order holding defendants and their attorneys in civil contempt of court, pursuant to Judiciary Law §753(A)(3), §756, and §773 (mot. seq. no. 003), is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that all parties shall appear for a virtual preliminary conference on May 26, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.; and it is further

ORDERED that, to the extent the parties cannot agree upon the same schedule for discovery deadlines, the parties must submit competing proposed discovery schedules in their submission to the court seven (7) days prior to the preliminary conference date; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties shall make a joint Rule 14 letter submission to chambers at SFC-PART43@nycourts.gov and e-file on NYSCEF, at least seven (7) days in advance of the preliminary conference.

DATE May 6, 2026

ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.