Magistrate Judge Marian Payson
Collins supplied ink used in Eastman Kodak’s commercial ink-jet printers. It terminated their 2008 agreement in 2011. Kodak sued for breach. District court granted Kodak an injunction compelling Collins’ compliance with contractual obligations. Collins’ answer raised three counterclaims related to Kodak’s own purported contractual noncompliance. Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Jan. 19, 2012. Claiming to be subject to the automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code §362, Kodak opposed Collins’ motion to compel production of “end-user order history data” and audit to verify Collins’ manufacture of 88 percent of the ink products sold by Kodak. District court denied Collins’ motion to compel, deeming the motion foreclosed by the automatic stay. Under the Second Circuit’s ruling in Koolik v. Markowitz, although the stay does not apply to the defense of a claim initiated by a plaintiff who later becomes a bankruptcy debtor, it does apply to counterclaims asserted against a debtor plaintiff “notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff initiated the lawsuit.” Collins’ motion sought specific performance of the very provisions it identified in its counterclaims as having been materially breached by Kodak.
