Court Permits Nonparty Subpoenas Seeking Endorsement Agreements With Professional Golfer In Commission Dispute

Posted: August 12, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Discovery/Disclosure, Commercial, Court Rules/Procedures

Court Permits Nonparty Subpoenas Seeking Endorsement Agreements With Professional Golfer In Commission Dispute

On July 10, 2026, in Schaeffer v GSE Worldwide, Index No. 652676/2021, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division denied the defendants’ motion to quash fourteen nonparty subpoenas.

Plaintiff Robert Frederick Schaeffer alleges that an oral commission agreement with defendant GSE Worldwide entitled him to a percentage of endorsement deals obtained by nonparty professional golfer Bryson DeChambeau between 2016 and 2021, and that he was never paid the commissions due. To test GSE’s position, Schaeffer served fourteen subpoenas on nonparty entities that purportedly entered into endorsement agreements with DeChambeau. GSE moved to quash the subpoenas. Schaeffer opposed the motion, arguing that the third-party agreements were necessary to show the existence of the alleged oral agreement between Schaeffer and GSE for commissions, its scope, and whether it covered deals made throughout the five-year period at issue. In denying defendants’ motion to quash, the Court explained:

The question to be resolved in this action is whether an oral agreement existed such that plaintiff is entitled to a monetary share of all endorsement agreements entered into by defendants. Plaintiff's request for disclosure of the agreements from third party entities is wholly appropriate, especially where, as here, there is a dispute as to whether any agreement existed, the scope of that agreement, and whether the endorsement agreements were applicable during the five-year window at issue here, requiring payment of commissions to plaintiff (2016-2021). Although defendants assert that some of the agreements were entered after plaintiff's role with GSE was terminated, that averment speaks to the ultimate admissibility of the agreement, not its discoverability. . . . Nothing in the record before the court establishes that compliance with the subpoenas would be “futile” or would otherwise lead to the disclosure of irrelevant information. . . . It is this court’s view that plaintiff's subpoenas comply with CPLR 3101 and do not constitute an impermissible “fishing expedition.” (citations omitted)

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP frequently litigate discovery disputes, including motions to quash and enforce nonparty subpoenas. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.