Vision Bank v. The Rookery, LLC et al
Order granting 104 MOTION to Compel filed by SE Property Holdings, LLC.. Defendant Vail is ORDERED to answer plaintiff's post-judgment interrogatories and requests for production of documents by 8/8/2013. Should the defendant fail t o comply with his post-judgment discovery obligations and the contents of this order, he is ORDERED to appear at a Show Cause Hearing set for 8/15/2013 at 10:00 AM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 3A, 113 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36602 before Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 7/19/2013. Order mailed certified mail to Mr. Vail as directed. (Cert Mail # 7012 0470 0001 7154 4883) (sdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
THE ROOKERY, LLC, et al.,
This cause is before the Court on plaintiff’s post-judgment motion to compel
defendant Richard Vail to respond to interrogatories and requests for production
propounded by plaintiff on May 14, 2013 (Doc. 104). Based upon the contents of the
motion to compel,1 as well as the undersigned’s determination that the written
discovery propounded by plaintiff (see Doc. 104, Post Judgment Discovery to Richard
Vail) seeks arguably relevant information, see Omniplex World Services Corp. v. Brinson,
2012 WL 2569194, *2 (M.D. Ga. July 2, 2012) (in case seeking an order to compel the
defendant to respond to plaintiff’s first set of post-judgment interrogatories and
requests for production of documents, the court observed that “[g]enerally, a district
court’s decision to compel discovery is not an abuse of discretion where the items
requested are arguably relevant to the case”), the plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
Compare id. with Diversified Golf LLC v. Trans World Commercial & Equity, LLC, 2012 WL
Vail has not answered the discovery propounded by plaintiff on May 14, 2013
(see Doc. 104, at ¶ 2); therefore, his responses are now long overdo, compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2)
(“The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being
served with the interrogatories.”) with Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A) (“The party to whom the request
is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served.”).
1673166, *4 (M.D. Ga. May 14, 2012) (“Diversified’s Motion to Compel  is granted. . . .
Boyles shall produce documents in response to Diversified’s [post-judgment] document
requests by June 8, 2012. Boyles is ordered to appear for a post-judgment deposition
upon receiving notice of the time, date and place of the deposition from Diversified’s
counsel. . . . Should Boyles fail to comply with her post-judgment obligations and this
Order, the Court will hold Boyles in contempt.”); see generally Pesaplastic, C.A. v.
Cincinnati Milacron Co., 799 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1986) (discussing at length the power of
district courts to order and compel post-judgment discovery).
Defendant Vail is ORDERED to answer plaintiff’s post-judgment interrogatories
and requests for production of documents not later than August 8, 2013. Should the
defendant fail to comply with his post-judgment discovery obligations and the contents
of this order, he is ORDERED to appear before the undersigned on August 15, 2013, at
10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3A, United States Courthouse, Mobile, Alabama, at which time
he will be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), and why he should not be ordered to pay the expenses of
the plaintiff—including attorney’s fees—in having to seek the undersigned’s assistance
in obtaining his answers to relevant post-judgment discovery, Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C).2
DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of July, 2013.
s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve this order on Mr. Vail by certified mail,
return receipt requested—P.O. Box 284, Bon Secour, AL 36511—and the moving party is to
ensure that Mr. Vail is served with this order.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?