The Subpoena Armada: The Hurley Problem

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

I N V E S T I G A T I V E N E W S L E T T E R O N F R A N C H I S E F R A U D & L I T I G A T I O N M I S C O N D U C T

H O R N S W A G G L E D

Special Dispatch • March 15, 2026

⚓ T H E S U B P O E N A A R M A D A , C O N T I N U E D

Sea Tow Sails Into a New Port — and Runs Aground Again A non-party deckhand fights back in the Middle District of Florida. His brief is a clinic in what Rule 45 actually says — versus what Sea Tow's counsel appears to believe it says. On February 11, 2026, a process server arrived at the door of Ryan Hurley , a non-party, nonmanagerial, operational-employee-with-a-personal-cellphone, and handed him a subpoena commanding him to produce documents and appear for deposition in Sea Tow Services International, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Marine Recovery, Inc., et al., Case No. 20 Civ. 2877 (WFK) (SIL), E.D.N.Y. [Ex. A, p.3] But Hurley didn't appear on this list by accident. On February 2, 2026 — nine days before service — Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke issued a Scheduling Order in the underlying EDNY case (DE [310]) after the parties failed to submit the simple joint letter he had requested. Instead of a table of names and dates, he received what he described as "two letters, one from each side griping about the other." [EDNY Scheduling Order, Feb. 2, 2026 (DE [310])] In that order, Judge Locke set a court-ordered deposition schedule. Hurley's name appears as Item F — Ryan Hurley — March 25, 2026. Critically, the order notes that Hurley was drawn from Plaintiff's own party correspondence — Sea Tow put him on the list. [EDNY Scheduling Order, Feb. 2, 2026 (DE [310])]

📄 EDNY SCHEDULING ORDER —

FEBRUARY 2, 2026 (DE [310])

"Defendants referred to witnesses identified by Plaintiff in party correspondence: Erich Jaeger, Abigail Jaeger, Ryan Hurley, Tampa Bay Marine Recovery, Inc., Kathleen Moreno and Tampa Bay Marine Towing & Services, Inc."

The same order imposed a strict ten-deposition limit per side, seven hours maximum each, and required that any in-person deposition be conducted within 30 miles of the primary residence of the witness being deposed. Hurley resides in Saint Petersburg, Florida. [EDNY Scheduling Order, Feb. 2, 2026 (DE [310]); Ex. B, p.10] Six days after service — well within the fourteen-day window under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B) — Hurley served written objections. He was polite. He was precise. He was unambiguous. [Ex. B, p.9-10] "I am not a party to this litigation. I have no knowledge of, and no involvement in, the two surviving claims in this action."

— Ryan Hurley, Rule 45 Objections, Feb. 17, 2026 [Ex. B]

The two surviving claims Hurley referenced are narrow: the alleged timing of de-branding under the Lanham Act, and the alleged cancellation or non-payment of a $24,000 royalty check. Hurley's role? Emergency Response Captain. An operational vessel position. No managerial responsibilities. No royalty payment records. No branding authority. No access to the financial documents the subpoena demands. [Ex. B, p.9] Sidebar: Wait? Doesn't Sea Tow claim that they don't collect royalty payments? Isn't that how they are arguing that they are not a franchise?

Sea Tow's counsel — Clifford J. Bond, Esq. of Kaufmann Gildin & Robbins LLP — did not withdraw the subpoena. Instead, on February 27, 2026, Bond sent Hurley an email. The email informed Hurley that the EDNY court had "denied Defendants' application for a Protective Order" concerning his subpoena, and demanded that Hurley, notwithstanding his objections, produce documents "by next week" and agree to appear for a deposition in Florida. [Ex. C, p.12]

📄 BOND EMAIL — FEBRUARY 27, 2026

"If you choose not to comply, we will commence an action in Florida to compel such compliance and will seek from you costs and legal fees associated with such application pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 45." [Ex. C, p.12] There is a problem with this email. Several, actually. First, the EDNY ruling Bond cited overruled the Jaegers' objections to subpoenas directed to other people — not Hurley's objections to the subpoena directed to him. The February 25, 2026 EDNY Minute Order expressly stated: "nothing in this order should be read to prevent any subpoena recipient from objecting to a subpoena in the appropriate court." [Ex. E, p.22] Second, Rule 37 sanctions apply to parties — not non-party witnesses who have timely objected. Once timely objections are served under Rule 45(d)(2)(B), the serving party may not compel production except by court order. The burden then shifts to them. [Doc. 12, p.67]

⚖️ THE MO TI ON TO C OMPEL

Sea Tow filed a Motion to Compel in the Middle District of Florida — Case No. 8:26-mc-10- WFJ-AAS — before it had provided Hurley any written narrowing of its requests. It asked the court to enforce the subpoena in its original form. [Doc. 12, p.67] Hurley filed his Response in Opposition on March 13, 2026. The brief is worth reading in full. For our purposes, here are the headlines:

"Plaintiff now seeks to compel a non-party operational employee to search personal devices and accounts for similarly sweeping damages-related discovery that the court presiding over the underlying litigation has already criticized as overbroad and disproportionate."

— HURLEY RESPONSE, DOC. 12, P.67

The subpoena's Appendix A demands "any and all documents and data concerning, comprising or consisting of communications (email, text, correspondence, electronic messaging or otherwise) concerning maritime business solicited and/or conducted" relating to a list of entities — covering a period beginning June 26, 2020, with no defined end date. [Ex. A, p.94] Hurley's personal cellphone contains more than 1,000 photographs and videos from the subpoena period. His current phone contains approximately two years of messages because he obtained a new phone in February 2024. He uses three personal email accounts that mix personal and work-related content. He has no work-issued device. [Ex. F, p.111] The EDNY court had already addressed the same categories of discovery when Sea Tow tried to obtain them from the parties themselves — and found them "overbroad, unduly burdensome and wholly disproportionate to the needs of the case." [Ex. D, p.107] Sea Tow is now attempting to extract through a non-party what the court said it couldn't get from the parties.

📄 EDNY ORDER — DECEMBER 29, 2025

[EX. D] "The requests at issue seek far more information than is appropriate... Read together with the related subpoena, they basically seek every document generated or received by non-party Maverick Marine Services, LLC." [Ex. D, p.107] Hurley's brief is equally clear on the "same-source" problem: "Communications involving the litigating parties are in those parties' possession as well." Any email Hurley may have sent to a party is, by definition, also in that party's inbox. Sea Tow doesn't need Hurley's personal phone to find Sea Tow's own records. [Doc. 12, p.75]

📬 The G O O D -Faith C O N F Ere N C E That

WAS N 'T

On March 9, 2026, Zachary Foster of Quarles & Brady LLP — local counsel for Sea Tow in the Middle District — sent Hurley a follow-up email memorializing a telephone call. The email confirmed that Sea Tow would agree to extend Hurley's briefing deadline through March 19, 2026. It also acknowledged that burden and scope "remained subjects of ongoing discussion." [Ex. C, p.105] But Sea Tow never translated those discussions into a written narrowed proposal before filing. As Hurley's brief notes, Plaintiff "did not provide any meaningful written narrowing of the subpoena's requests before filing the present motion seeking to compel compliance with the subpoena in its original form." [Doc. 12, p.72] Hurley requested any proposed narrowing in writing — so the scope would be defined. That request was not honored. Sea Tow filed anyway. [Ex. C, p.104] What can we infer from that?

🏴‍☠️ THE B O TTOM LINE

Ryan Hurley is a boat captain.

He was not responsible for royalty payments.

He was not responsible for branding decisions.

He does not maintain entity-level financial records.

He does not have a company phone. He carries 1,000+ personal photos on a device Sea Tow would now like him to search — at his own time and expense — for communications that are already in the possession of the actual parties to this case. [Ex. F, p.111; Doc. 12, p.74] His conclusion:

"Mr. Hurley respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion and quash the subpoena in its entirety, or alternatively limit any permitted deposition to identified, non-duplicative topics for which Plaintiff can make a concrete showing that Mr. Hurley possesses unique relevant knowledge not available from the parties themselves."

— HURLEY RESPONSE, DOC. 12, P.85

Seems fair, we'll be watching.

Great to wear for depositions or annual meetings.

Y E S, WE H A V E MERC H

Hornswaggled reports on public court filings and documented public records. All citations reference docketed documents in Case No. 8:26- mc-00010-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla.) and Case No. 2:20-cv-02877-WFK-SIL (E.D.N.Y.). 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.