Dole v. Nouveau Riche Corporation

Filing 30

ORDER denying without prejudice [23-24] Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Debtor Exam. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 5/16/11.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Janet Dole,

)
)
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,)
)
vs.
)
)
Nouveau Riche Corporation,
)
)
)
Defendant/Judgment Debtor.)
)

No. CV-10-2645-PHX-LOA
ORDER

15

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for

16

Interrogatories, which the Court construes as a Motion for Judgment Debtor’s Examination

17

via Interrogatories. (Docs. 23-24) Judgment in favor of Plaintiff was entered on April 12,

18

2011, doc. 21, and there is no evidence that it has been paid. To aid in the enforcement of

19

the judgment, Plaintiff requests an order directing judgment debtor Nouveau Riche

20

Corporation to answer the interrogatories (written questions) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 69

21

and A.R.S. § 12-1631. (Docs. 23, 24)

22

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) provides that a “judgment creditor . . .

23

may obtain discovery from any person--including the judgment debtor--as provided in these

24

rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(2).

25

While less conventional than an oral deposition, because Rule 33(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

26

authorizes a party to obtain discovery by way of written questions and answers by service

27

on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts,

28

Plaintiff, as a judgment creditor, may properly use interrogatories to obtain information from

1

Nouveau Riche Corporation, a judgment debtor. United States v. McWhirter, 376 F.2d 102,

2

106 (5th Cir. 1967) (“[w]e conclude that Rule 69(a) authorizes the government to propound

3

written interrogatories to the appellees under Rule 33.”). Thus, a judgment creditor may

4

propound discovery to a judgment debtor by interrogatories, requests for production and/or

5

inspection of documents. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, and 34. Odnil Music Ltd. v. Katharsis LLC,

6

2007 WL 1703763, * 2 (E.D.Cal., Jun 11, 2007). If a judgment debtor fails to respond to

7

properly crafted discovery, the court may compel responses and impose sanctions if the

8

debtor lacked substantial justification for failing to respond. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b),

9

37(a)).

10

Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories are defective and provide

11

wholly inadequate instructions for compliance. (Doc. 24 at 2-5) First, Plaintiff’s proposed

12

interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, substantially exceed the 25 interrogatory limit

13

set forth in Rule 33(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff has also inappropriately combined a request

14

for the production of documents authorized by Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.P., see no. 13, with

15

written interrogatories. They are separate discovery methods and should have separate

16

instructions for each. Moreover, no instructions are provided how Nouveau Riche

17

Corporation may file its answers under seal, consistent with the District Court’s Local Rules,

18

to protect the confidentiality of the proprietary information requested by Plaintiff. The form

19

of the interrogatories is also deficient because each interrogatory does not allow any space,

20

much less adequate space, to answer each interrogatory immediately after the interrogatory

21

itself. Finally, Plaintiff provides no information on how she intends to serve the requested

22

discovery on Nouveau Riche Corporation which has not appeared in the District Court.

23
24
25

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Debtor’s Examination
via Interrogatories, docs. 23-24, is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 16th day of May, 2011.

26
27
28
-2-