Procedural Posture and Dispositive Issue

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a post-judgment discovery dispute arising from Plaintiff Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC’s (“Blasket”) efforts to enforce a recognized foreign arbitral award exceeding $47 million against the Kingdom of Spain (“Spain”). The Court considers Spain’s motion to quash or modify third-party subpoenas served on U.S. entities providing services for Spain’s national football team. The dispositive issue is whether the subpoenas, which define “Spain” to include its national football federation and team, are overbroad and unduly burdensome because they seek information from entities not properly considered alter egos of the sovereign judgment debtor.

Parties’ Positions and Court's Standing Analysis

Spain contended that the subpoenas constituted harassment and sought irrelevant information, as its football federation is a legally distinct instrumentality whose assets are not subject to execution for the State's debts. Blasket countered that post-judgment discovery is permissive and that the federation is an alter ego of Spain, rendering its financial information discoverable. Preliminarily, the Court determined that the question of a party’s standing to challenge a third-party subpoena is a non-jurisdictional, waivable issue. It concluded that Blasket had waived any objection to Spain’s standing on relevance grounds by failing to properly raise it.

Legal Framework and Substantive Reasoning

The Court’s analysis centered on the legal standard articulated in *First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba*, 462 U.S. 611 (1983) (*Bancec*), which establishes a presumption that government instrumentalities are legally separate from the sovereign. To overcome this presumption, a judgment creditor must demonstrate that the instrumentality is an alter ego of the state through evidence of extensive control. The Court found Blasket’s evidentiary proffer—citing state subsidies and bylaw approvals—insufficient to meet this high standard, noting these are typical attributes of state instrumentalities, not indicia of alter ego status. The Court rejected Blasket’s alternative theory that the subpoenaed U.S. entities might hold information about assets held by the federation on Spain’s behalf, deeming such a connection too attenuated. Consequently, the Court held that the subpoenas were impermissibly overbroad and unduly burdensome as they sought extensive information regarding non-party entities whose assets are not relevant to the collection of the judgment against Spain.

Operative Ruling

The Court GRANTED Spain’s motion to modify the subpoenas. It ORDERED Blasket to amend the subpoenas to exclude Spain’s national football team and federation, as well as the Bank of Spain, from its definition of “Spain” and to ensure compliance with prior court orders, including the operative Protective Order.