Sea Tow Files a Whiney Response to the Judge’s Order

Web edition of the original email dispatch, reproduced from the published text. Transport headers and recipient details removed; content otherwise as sent.

HH

D I S P A T

OO

C H E S

R

F

R

R O M

NN

T H E C R

SS

O W ' S

W

N

W

E S T · AAT R U T H

GG

F R O M

GG

T H E

L

M

L

I Z Z

E

N

DD

M A S T

⚓ V O L . I I , N O . 8 S P E C I A L E D I T I O N — F E B R U A R Y 2 0 , 2 0 2 6 C A S E 2 : 2 0 - C V - 0 2 8 7 7 - W F K - S I L ⚓ 🚨 B R E A K I N G : S E A T O W D E M A N D S A D O - O V E R A F T E R J U D G E A C T S I N U N D E R 2 4 H O U R S 🚨

⚓ E P I S O D E E I G H T : T H E C A P T A I N C R I E S F O U L ⚓

22 vs. 10:

When "Excess of Caution"

Means Twice the Legal Limit

ECF Doc. 312 | Filed February 20, 2026 | E.D.N.Y.

Ahoy, mateys. Gather 'round the capstan, because today's dispatch be a tale of breathtakin' audacity dressed up as procedural innocence. Sea Tow fired 22 deposition subpoenas into the ocean — twice the limit Judge Locke ordered — and when His Honor dropped anchor on their armada in less than a day, their lawyers rushed to the quarterdeck cryin' foul. The irony, she be thicker than barnacles on a Frochise agreement.

📜What Just Happened — The Sequence Of Events

FEBRUARY 2, 2026

Judge Locke issues Scheduling Order. Crystal clear: 10 depositions per side, maximum. Non-party subpoenas must be served by February 13 and returnable by April 23.

FEBRUARY 5, 2026

Sea Tow serves 6 new third-party subpoenas, each noticing a deposition. Combined with 5 party depositions already on the books, that's 11. The limit was 10. The ink on the order wasn't even dry.

FEBRUARY 10, 2026

Sea Tow fires another broadside: 11 more subpoenas, each with a deposition notice. Total subpoenas with depositions: 22. The court-ordered limit: 10.

FEBRUARY 12, 2026

The Jaegers' attorney Brian Looser emails Sea Tow's counsel asking them to withdraw the subpoenas and explaining the deposition-limit violation in detail. Sea Tow does not respond.

FEBRUARY 17, 2026

Sea Tow fires 22 deposition subpoenas against a court-ordered 10-deposition limit — then complains the judge acted too fast when he stopped the plunder.

Having received no response, the Jaegers serve their Motion for Protective Order / to Quash on Sea Tow. Filing with the Court pends per bundling rules.

FEBRUARY 18, 2026

Jaegers file ECF Doc. 311 — Letter Motion for Temporary Protective Order staying the subpoena compliance deadlines, noting the first document production deadlines hit as early as February 19.

February 19, 2026 (Less Than 24 Hrs Later)

Judge Locke GRANTS the temporary protective order. The Court clearly recognized that with document deadlines already upon the parties, waiting for a 4-day response period would moot the motion.

FEBRUARY 20, 2026

Sea Tow files ECF Doc. 312: Motion for Reconsideration. The main complaint? They didn't get their 4-day response window before the Judge ruled. A bit rich from the crew that ignored the Jaegers' February 12 email for six days.

🧮THE ARITHMETIC DOESN'T LIE

Sea Tow's lead argument in Doc. 312 is that they "are well aware of the ten deposition limit" and "had and have no intention to take more than ten depositions." They call the deposition notices in the subpoenas a precaution — "done out of an excess of caution to preserve rights, as is common in subpoenas duces tecum." Let us do the math the court can also plainly do:

⚓ S E A T O W ' S D E P O S I T I O N T A L L Y — F E B R U A R Y 2 0 2 6

Mitchell A. Stein (party)1

Joseph Frohnhoefer III (party)1

Kristen Frohnhoefer (party)1

Erich Jaeger (party)1

Abigail Jaeger (party)1

Kathleen Moreno (party)1

Ryan Hurley (party)1

TBMR (party/corporate)1

TBMT (party/corporate)1

Party depositions subtotal 9 of 10 limit used

Non-party subpoenas with depositions noticed (Feb. 5) +6

Non-party subpoenas with depositions noticed (Feb. 10) +11 Russ & Karen L'Hommedieu (non-party) +2 TOTAL DEPOSITIONS NOTICED 22 of 10 allowed

⚠️ T H E " E X C E S S O F C A U T I O N " D E F E N S E

If you "notice" 22 depositions while claiming you only intend to take 10, the logical question is: which 12 people did you intend to harass with federal subpoenas as mere "caution"?

Because those 12 non-parties — real people and small businesses — had to drop everything, consult lawyers, and respond to federal court process that Sea Tow now admits they never intended to actually use.

That is not caution. That be a dragnet.

⚖️Sea Tow'S Arguments — Weighed At The Admiralty

COURT

S E A T O W C L A I M S

"We didn't get our 4-day response window before the Court ruled."

C A N N O N F I R E — B O T H S I D E S True — but Sea Tow ignored the Jaegers' February 12 written conference request for six days before filing. They created the emergency that required emergency relief.

S E A T O W C L A I M S

"The subpoenas are narrowly tailored, relevant, and proper under Rules 26 and 45."

H O L E D B E L O W T H E W A T E R L I N E Judge Locke already ruled on Dec. 29, 2025 that Sea Tow's prior requests were "overbroad, unduly burdensome" and read "like an attempt to obtain discovery the Court denied on procedural grounds." Same targets. Same documents. Different wrapper. 3

S E A T O W C L A I M S

"The Court's own February 2 Scheduling Order contemplated these subpoenas." W E A K E S T P L A N K The Feb. 2 order set a deadline for serving subpoenas — it did not authorize issuing them in numbers that violate the 10-deposition limit set in the very same order. You cannot weaponize one sentence to nullify the sentence above it.

S E A T O W C L A I M S

"Defendants did an 'end-around' the TRO requirements by filing a letter motion instead of a formal Order to Show Cause."

M A G N I F I C E N T I R O N Y Sea Tow — which the Court found in Dec. 2025 made "untrue representations" in its own motion papers — is now lecturing about proper procedural form. The crew that repeatedly skirted discovery deadlines and ignored conference obligations is indignant about letter motions.

〰〰〰 ⚓ 〰〰〰

🏴‍☠️The Irony That Would Make Poseidon Chuckle

🎯 T H E P R O C E D U R A L H Y P O C R I S Y L O G

Sea Tow's Doc. 312 complains bitterly that they were not given their 4-day response window under Individual Rule 4(A)(i) before Judge Locke ruled. They are correct that the usual rule allows 4 days.

Now let us consult the ship's log on Sea Tow's own procedural compliance record in this case, per the Court's own findings:

⚓ Sea Tow missed the August 28, 2023 document discovery deadline — after receiving five extensions.

⚓ Sea Tow's 2017 TTAB trademark registration was cancelled for systematic discovery obstruction.

⚓ Sea Tow received explicit Rule 4(A)(i) meet-and-confer requests from the Jaegers on February 12 and non-responded with silence for six days. ⚓ The Court found Sea Tow's December 2025 motion papers contained representations that were "untrue."

"Calling an adversary a liar in court filings or suggesting that an adversary is gaslighting the Court does not convince the Court that the accusations are true. If anything, they invite suspicion on the accusing attorney."

— Judge Locke, December 29, 2025 Order (the same order finding Sea Tow's representations "untrue")

〰〰〰 ⚓ 〰〰〰

🔭WHAT THIS MEANS FOR NON-PARTY WITNESSES

Among the 22 noticed depositions: The first ones were non-party — with the earliest deadlines in the entire subpoena wave. Documents demanded by February 19. Depositions scheduled March 5 — before even the first party depositions ordered by the Court. Why put non-parties first in the queue? Perhaps because non-parties have fewer procedural protections, less access to counsel already embedded in the case, and — if they happen to have knowledge of a certain corporate theft — might be susceptible to pressure.

⚓ What The Protective Order Means In Practice

Judge Locke's February 19 order stays all compliance deadlines for the 17 contested subpoenas pending resolution of the full motion to quash.

Sea Tow's admission in Doc. 312 — that they "will not be taking depositions of most of the Subpoenaed nonparties" — concedes in writing that most of these subpoenas were never intended to lead to actual depositions.

They wanted the documents. The documents that the court told them they were not entitled to have.

For non-parties who received them, this language is significant: if the Court ultimately quashes these subpoenas, Sea Tow's own filing confirms the depositions were never the real point.

The mathematical impossibility (22 vs. 10) combined with Sea Tow's silence in response to the February 12 meet-and-confer request builds a strong foundation for the argument that these subpoenas constitute the same pattern of litigation harassment Judge Locke identified in December 2025 — using discovery "to obtain the discovery the Court denied on procedural grounds."

🦅EYES ON THE HORIZON — WHAT COMES NEXT

⚓Judge Locke's Response to Doc. 312: Will the Court grant reconsideration? Given that Doc. 312 was filed same-day as the protective order, and given the emergency nature of the February 19 deadlines that made the original ruling urgent, reconsideration appears unlikely — but the Court could order limited briefing.

⚓Full Briefing on the Motion to Quash: The Jaegers' full 20-page memorandum of law (filed February 17, not yet docketed per bundling rules) will give Judge Locke the complete picture — including the December 2025 findings and the prior denial of the same discovery categories.

⚓March 16–18 Depositions: Stein, Frohnhoefer III, and Kristen Frohnhoefer are scheduled to testify. These depositions — ordered by the Court — proceed regardless of the subpoena dispute. The real treasure hunt begins in the deposition room. ⚓The Special Master Warning: Judge Locke's February 2 order explicitly warned that the next discovery dispute "may result in the appointment of a special master" at the parties' equal expense. Filing Doc. 312 just spent one of those chips.

⚓The "Untrue Representations" Thread: Sea Tow's counsel now has a documented pattern before this Court — the December 2025 "untrue" finding, the 22 vs. 10 math, and the failure to respond to the February 12 conference request. Each entry in this log will be available at summary judgment.

〰〰〰 🏴‍☠️ 〰〰〰

🌊THE CROW'S NEST VIEW

There be a sayin' among sailors: the ship that fires the most cannons does not always win the battle. Sometimes, firin' too many cannons at once tells the Admiral ye be desperate — or worse, that ye be usin' cannon fire not to sink the enemy, but to terrorize the harbor. Twenty-two depositions noticed against a ten-deposition limit. The first victims: non-parties who had nothing to do with the surviving claims in this case, scheduled for depositions before the party witnesses who actually do. Documents demanded from marine competitors in a transparent attempt to obtain competitive intelligence the Court already ruled was irrelevant.

And when the Judge stopped the armada in its tracks — in less than 24 hours, because the deadlines were already upon the non-parties — Sea Tow's response was to file a motion demanding a do-over. Not to explain the 22 vs. 10 math. Not to explain why non-parties needed to be deposed before party witnesses. Just: we didn't get our four days. The sea remembers everything. So does the docket. And both are public record.

⚓ D O C U M E N T A C C U R A C Y

All information herein is based on publicly available

court filings, federal docket records, and official documents. We caution all readers to examine source documents for themselves. Case No. 2:20-cv-02877- WFK-SIL is public record on PACER.

⚓ S A T I R E & C O M M E N T A R Y

We engage in satire, parody, and rhetorical flourishes

for the purpose of provoking thought — our First Amendment right as a U.S.-based pirate crew. Even pirates can be patriots.

⚓ A I U S A G E D I S C L A I M E R

Some content may be created, enhanced, or assisted

by artificial intelligence tools. AI-generated content is part of our creative and analytical process. We be livin' in the future, mateys, where even parrots be digital.

⚓ N O L E G A L A D V I C E

We are storytellers and question-askers, not lawyers, accountants, or licensed advisors of any sort. Seek professional counsel for matters of law and coin. The New York State AG Investor Protection Bureau: (212) 416-8222.

Ahoy — Who Be Hornswaggled?

We may or may not be...

A scallywag with a quill and a grudge A motley crew of marooned sailors Your neighbor at the annual meeting Someone near Hummel Avenue Ghosts in the rigging Former hands what got keelhauled Landlubbers with library cards If this message found ye floating on the internet and ye want it direct from the crow's nest — reply and we'll add ye to the crew list.

Hornswaggled

We may or may not be a crew. · We may or may not be near ye right now. We definitely be committed to transparency... even if we be mysteriously opaque about ourselves. "In a world of corporate plunder, sometimes ye need pirates to restore honor to the seas." Ahoy, Mateys and Landlubbers Alike, Ye be askin' who be Hornswaggled?

Aye, that be a question worthy of ponderin', though we may or may not be obliged to give ye a straight answer.

(Ah - before we forget, if this message got to you in a bottle floatin' on the internet and you want the scoop directly from the crow's nest, respond to this email and we will add ya to the list!!!)

We may or may not be:

A single scallywag with a quill and a grudge

A motley crew of seafarin' souls who've been hornswaggled by corporate buccaneers Yer neighbor at the annual meeting, sippin' grog and takin' notes Someone dockin' at a certain harbor on Hummel Avenue as ye read this very scroll Current crew members who've grown weary of sailin' under a tattered flag Former hands what got marooned after years of loyal service Landlubbers with access to the ship's log Ghosts in the rigging what see all and say nothin'... until now Our Mission Be Crystal Clear (even if our identities be foggier than Point Judith): We sail these troubled waters to inspire thoughtful questions about yer business, yer future, and whether the ship ye be sailin' on has sprung more leaks than the captain be admittin'.

We may or may not have witnessed—or been keelhauled by—what some might call a "Frochise" business model (that be a franchise what acts more like a noose than a partnership, savvy?).

We believe the time has come for true transparency to be the new corporate culture. No more hidin' behind the legal fog.

Ye be heading for a legal Malstrom and Ye ought to know when to batten down and make fast the deck tackle.

No more makin' honest sailors walk the plank whilst the officers in the great cabin count their doubloons.

A Word on Our Tales:

Some of our yarns may feature composite characters—a bit of this captain mixed with that first mate, perhaps a dash of a deckhand thrown in for flavor. We do not acknowledge, confirm, or deny that these characters represent any person, living or dead, drowned or saved, real or imagined.

They be as fictional as mermaids... or as real as the Kraken, dependin' on who ye ask. About the Dangers of Our Trade:

Far too many brave souls risk their lives in the marine towing and salvage business.

They battle storms, rogue waves, and vessels in distress—and that be hard enough without also fightin' battles from within their own fleet.

When the greatest danger comes not from Poseidon himself, but from the corporate quarterdeck, something be terribly wrong with how we chart our course. Our Sources and Methods:

All information we provide be based on publicly available documents—court filings, federal records, treasure maps left in plain sight (also known as corporate filings), and such.

We be but humble researchers with library cards and internet connections. IMPORTANT DISCLAIMERS (The Boring But Necessary Stuff):

⚓ Document Accuracy:

We not be responsible for any errors, omissions, or deviations from the public record. We caution all readers to read the source documents for themselves. Don't take our word for it—verify with yer own eyes, savvy?

⚓ Satire and Commentary:

We may engage in satire, parody, and rhetorical flourishes for the purpose of provoking thought, which be our First Amendment right as a U.S.-based pirate crew. (Aye, even pirates can be patriots!)

⚓ AI Usage Disclaimer:

Some of our content may be created, enhanced, or assisted by artificial intelligence tools. We be livin' in the future, mateys, where even parrots be digital. Any AI-generated content should be considered part of our creative and analytical process.

⚓ AI Image Generation Disclaimer:

Images accompanying our publications may be generated wholly or partially by artificial intelligence.

These images be for illustrative, satirical, or commentary purposes only. They do not represent real people, real events, or real photographs unless explicitly stated otherwise.

No AI-generated image should be construed as documentary evidence. ⚓ No Legal or Financial Advice:

We not be lawyers, accountants, or licensed advisors of any sort.

We be storytellers, researchers, and question-askers.

Seek ye professional counsel for matters of law and coin.

So, who be Hornswaggled?

We be the voice in the crow's nest yellin' "Hard Alee!" when the corporate ship be headin' for the rocks.

We be the conscience that asks uncomfortable questions at midnight when the watch changes.

We be whoever needs to be, whenever truth needs tellin'.

Or perhaps we be nobody at all—just the wind whistlin' through the riggin', carryin' tales that needed to be told.

The only certainty?

We may or may not be watchin'.

We may or may not be listenin'.

And we may or may not have more stories to tell.

Fair winds and following seas, Hornswaggled We may or may not be a crew.

We may or may not be near ye right now.

We definitely be committed to transparency...

even if we be mysteriously opaque about ourselves.

"In a world of corporate plunder, sometimes ye need pirates to restore honor to the seas."

AI-GENERATED CONTENT DISCLAIMER

AI Involvement

This document was generated using Claude (Anthropic), an artificial intelligence language model, based on analysis of legal documents, court filings, and other materials provided in a project knowledge base. The AI synthesized information from these source documents to create a narrative analysis of the legal proceedings described herein.

Source Materials

The content is derived from:

Court documents filed in Case 2:20-cv-02877-WFK-SIL (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York) Court documents filed in Case 2:25-cv-02145 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York) Legal pleadings, motions, memoranda, and orders Docket entries and case transcripts Attorney correspondence and discovery documents Analytical articles based on public PACER filings All dates, case numbers, document references, and quoted material are derived from these source documents to the best of the AI's ability to accurately represent them.

Not Legal Advice

This document is for informational and analytical purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon as such. The analysis, interpretations, and conclusions presented represent one perspective on complex legal proceedings and should not be considered definitive or authoritative. Readers should:

Consult with licensed attorneys for legal advice specific to their situations Independently verify all factual claims and legal citations Review original court documents and filings through PACER or other official sources Recognize that legal proceedings are ongoing and facts may change Limitations and Caveats 1. Interpretation Bias: The narrative structure and framing reflect editorial choices made in synthesizing the material. Other reasonable interpretations of the same documents may exist. 2. Document Access: The AI's analysis is limited to documents provided in the project knowledge base. Other relevant documents may exist that were not analyzed.

3. Temporal Snapshot: This document reflects information available as of October 31, 2025. Court proceedings continue to evolve, and rulings or developments after this date are not included. 4. No Attorney-Client Relationship: Nothing in this document creates an attorney-client relationship between any reader and any person or entity.

5. Verification Recommended: While efforts were made to accurately represent source materials, readers should independently verify all claims, especially before taking any action based on this information. Purpose This document was created to:

Provide a comprehensive narrative timeline of the legal proceedings Synthesize complex legal documents into accessible prose Highlight patterns and connections across multiple filings Support informed discussion of franchise law compliance issues Parties' Rights All parties named in this document retain their full legal rights. Nothing herein should be construed as prejudging the outcome of pending litigation. Courts of competent jurisdiction will make final determinations on all disputed matters.

Public Records

The legal proceedings described herein are matters of public record. Court documents referenced can be accessed through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://pacer.uscourts.gov or by visiting the clerk's office of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Questions or Corrections If you believe any factual statement in this document misrepresents source materials or contains errors, please consult the original court filings for authoritative information.