Blemaster v. Sabo et al

Filing 138

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the Court's 133 Order is AFFIRMED, and the Judgment Debtor Examinations set in that Order for August 22, 2018 will proceed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment Debtor Florin Ivan's requests that the Court deny the motion for a judgment debtor examination, as set forth in his 132 response to the motion seeking his testimony in a judgment debtor examination is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court rejects as insufficient Judgment Debtor Florin Ivan's objections to the requests for production included in the Order setting the Judgment Debtor Examinations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bridget S Bade on 7/16/18. (MSA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Blemaster,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-04557-PHX-JWS

Horatiu Cornelius Sabo, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Michael Blemaster has filed two motions for judgment

16

debtor examinations of Floran Ivan and the law firm of Ivan & Kilmark, PLC

17

(“Judgment/Debtors”). (Docs. 122, 123.) The Hon. John W. Sedwick, Senior District

18

Judge, referred these motions to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade. (128.) The motions

19

for judgment debtor examinations seek testimony concerning the Judgment Debtors’

20

ability to satisfy the $6,075.57 judgment entered in this Court on June 1, 2018, at Docket

21

No. 117. (Docs. 122, 123.)

22

Judgment/Debtor Florin Ivan (“Ivan”) has filed a response to the motion for

23

judgment debtor examination seeking his testimony (Doc. 122) and argues that this Court

24

entered a sanctions award against him in violation of his due process rights.1 (Doc. 132

25

at 5-7.) Ivan also states that he has filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the

26

judgment (see id. at 5, Doc. 130) and, therefore, the Court should deny the motion for a

27
1

28

Ivan’s response does not address the motion for judgment debtor examination seeking
testimony of a representative of Ivan & Kilmark (Doc. 123), and refers only to a singular
motion for a judgment debtor examination. (See Doc. 132 at 1, 5, and 7.)

1

judgment debtor examination seeking his testimony “until the Ninth Circuit renders a

2

decision on the merits.” (Doc. 132 at 7.) Ivan also objects to the request for production

3

of documents served with the Order setting the Judgment Debtor Examinations. As set

4

forth below, the Court rejects these arguments and reaffirms its Order setting the

5

Judgment Debtor Examinations.

6

I.

7

The Court has Previously Rejected Judgment Debtor’s Due Process
Arguments and His Arguments to Stay Enforcement of the Sanctions Order
Pending Appeal.

8

In several filings, Ivan has argued that the Court’s sanctions order was entered in

9

violation of his due process rights. (Docs. 80, 88, 101.) The Court has rejected these

10

arguments in several orders. (Docs. 87, 91, 115; see also Doc. 116 (rejecting defense

11

attorneys’ argument that the Court imposed sanctions without allowing them an

12

opportunity to argue that their conduct was not sanctionable, and stating “[d]efense

13

attorneys have already pressed this argument in many iterations of their refusal to pay.”).)

14

The Court also rejected the argument that the defense attorneys were not required

15

to pay the sanctions until final judgment was entered. (Doc. 87 at 2.) The Court

16

explained that its sanctions order, under Rule 26(g)(3), is “immediately enforceable” and

17

stated that after “an appealable final judgment has been entered, the attorney can file an

18

appeal to seek repayment.” (Id. (emphasis added) (citing Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty.,

19

Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 211 (1999) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (explaining that the district

20

court has discretion to delay payment of sanctions if a hardship is present)).)

21

subsequent orders, the Court stated that it had “clarif[ied] to [d]efense [a]ttorneys that

22

they did in fact have to pay the discovery sanction and could not wait for a ruling on any

23

potential appeal in this case.” (Doc. 91 at 1; see also Doc. 116 at 2 (same).) The Court

24

also denied the defense attorneys’ motion to stay enforcement of the sanctions order

25

pending appeal. (Doc. 115.)

In

26

Therefore, the Court finds that Ivan may not attempt to relitigate his objections to

27

the Court’s sanctions order in his response to the motion for a judgment debtor

28

examination. The Court has already rejected these arguments and the Court’s referral of

-2-

1

the motions for judgment debtor examinations to a magistrate judge does not provide a

2

basis for Ivan to attempt to reargue his objections. Indeed, the Court could reasonably

3

conclude that a party attempting to reargue previously-rejected positions when a matter is

4

referred to another judge for judgment collection is simply judge shopping.

5

II.

Judgment Debtor’s Appeal from Final Judgment Does Not Support a Stay.

6

Ivan also attempts to distinguish the current procedural posture of the case from its

7

posture at the time the Court denied his motion to stay enforcement of the sanctions

8

order. Ivan asserts that the Court denied the motion to stay enforcement of the sanctions

9

order because the Ninth Circuit dismissed an interlocutory appeal.

(Doc. 132 at 4

10

(quoting Doc. 115).) He states that the clerk has entered a final judgment, which he has

11

appealed and, therefore, he argues that the enforcement of the sanctions order through

12

collection of the judgment should be stayed pending resolution of the appeal. (See id. at

13

4-5.)

14

Ivan does not support any authority to support his argument that judgment

15

collection should be stayed during an appeal. In contrast, the Judgment Creditor cites In

16

re Padilla, 222 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2000), in which the Ninth Circuit explained that

17

“[a]bsent a stay or supersedeas, the trial court also retains jurisdiction to implement or

18

enforce the judgment or order but may not alter or expand upon the judgment.” Id. at

19

1190. Therefore, the Court concludes that Ivan’s appeal from the final judgment does not

20

provide a basis to stay judgment collection proceedings, including judgment debtor

21

examinations.

22

III.

Judgment Debtor’s Objections to the Request for Production are Insufficient.

23

Ivan also makes generalized objections to the request for production of documents

24

entered with the Order setting the Judgment Debtor Examination. (Doc. 132 at 7-9.) He

25

objects that the requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and are not proportional to

26

the needs of the case. He objects that he does not want to produce his financial records to

27

the Judgment Creditor, who he describes as a “convicted fraudster.”2 He also objects that

28

2

To the extent Ivan has verifiable concerns about providing financial records to the
Judgment Creditor, he could resolve this issue by seeking an agreement or order that such
-3-

1

it would be overly burdensome for him to obtain his financial records because of his

2

physical disabilities.3

3

The Court rejects these generalized objections because Ivan does not apply these

4

objections to any specific request for production. Instead, it appears he is attempting to

5

object to the request for production as a group, without identifying any objection to a

6

particular request for production. These objections do not comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(B),

7

which requires that, for each request for production, a party must state with specificity its

8

grounds for objecting. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (b)(2)(B); see also Walker v. Lakewood

9

Condominium Owners Ass’n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (explaining that

10

generalized objections are inadequate) (citations omiited).

11

Finally, Ivan objects to Request No. 7 because he asserts that it seeks information

12

about the identity of his clients and the nature of their payment obligations, which he

13

asserts is protected by the attorney-client privilege. (Doc. 132 at 9.) He acknowledges

14

that the request states that information may be redacted to protect any applicable

15

attorney-client privilege, but he asserts, without explanation or citation to authority, that

16

redacting the information would not protect privileged information. In contrast, the

17

Judgment Creditor cites several cases to support its argument that the identity of clients

18

and their fee arrangements are not privileged. (Doc. 136 at 3-4.) The Court need not

19

resolve this issue to address the objection to Request No. 7. The Court rejects Ivan’s

20

objection because he has not explained, or even attempted to explain, why redacting

21

information that he deems privileged would not be sufficient to protect any applicable

22
23
24

records shall be disclosed “for attorney eyes only.” His attacks on the Judgment Creditor
do not state a sufficient objection to responding to the Judgment Debtor Examination.
3

25
26
27
28

Ivan asserts, without explanation, that responding to the Judgment Debtor Examination
is outside the scope of his job and, therefore, his employer will not provide the assistance
that he normally receives when litigating matters. However, Ivan is the named partner in
his firm and therefore it appears that he is self-employed and has the authority to direct
firm resources to assist him in this matter. Ivan also does not explain how responding to
collection activities, for a judgment entered against him and the firm for conduct
representing clients, is outside the scope of his job. Therefore, the Court rejects his
argument that he cannot respond to the judgment debtor examination because of his
physical disabilities.
-4-

1

attorney client privilege. Therefore, the Court rejects Ivan’s objection to Request No. 7.

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s Order (Doc. 133) is AFFIRMED, and the

4

Judgment Debtor Examinations set in that Order for August 22, 2018 will proceed.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment Debtor Florin Ivan’s requests that

6

the Court deny the motion for a judgment debtor examination, as set forth in his response

7

to the motion seeking his testimony in a judgment debtor examination (Doc. 132), is

8

DENIED.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court rejects as insufficient Judgment

10

Debtor Florin Ivan’s objections to the requests for production included in the Order

11

setting the Judgment Debtor Examinations.

12

Dated this 16th day of July, 2018.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-