Issue link: https://mbozikis.ufcontent.com/i/1422521
29 'discovering assets, examining transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.'" In re Enron Corp., 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal citations omitted). The scope of such examinations is "broad and unfettered and in the nature of fishing expeditions." Id. (emphasis added). Obviously, however, the availability of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is not without limitations, and courts will not allow Rule 2004 Examinations to proceed where the examination is designed to abuse or harass, where the examination seeks to obtain irrelevant information or where the examination would circumvent the stricter discovery requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, although the scope of a Rule 2004 Examination is broad, such examination must be both pertinent and reasonable. See, e.g., In re Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 384 B.R. 373, 393–94 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008). There is a relative dearth of case law examining what it means for a Rule 2004 Examination to be designed to abuse or harass the examinee. In one case that was noteworthy for the attention it paid to this subject, the Second Circuit concluded that a party's use of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 to "explore the subject matter of [an] already concluded adversary proceeding while the appeal on that proceeding was pending in the district court" was solely for the purpose of harassment. Martin v. Schapp Moving Sys., Inc., No. 97-5042, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 15255, *2 (2d Cir. 1998) (unpubl.). In another case, the Southern District of New York restricted a creditor's attempt to use Bankruptcy Rule 2004 to obtain a massive amount of documents from an examinee, noting that the examination "should not encompass matters that will be unduly burdensome to the debtor and duplicative of previously furnished information." In re Texaco, Inc., 79 B.R. 551, 553 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987); see also In re Countrywide Home Loans, 384 B.R. at 400. Courts are particularly concerned that Bankruptcy Rule 2004 not be used as a means of navigating around the substantive and procedural protections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.