Buckeye Retirement Co LLC Ltd v. Buffa

Filing 86

RULING: granting in part 79 MOTION (a) Supplemental Post-Judgment Discovery Orders; (b) Supplemental Relief in Order of Aid of Execution; and (c) a Finding of Contempt Against Multiple Parties, granting in part 82 Motion to Modify Discovery Orders, Terminate Post Judgment Discover and for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 12/16/2011. (Rodko, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
----------------------------------------------------------x
:
BUCKEYE RETIREMENT CO., LLC, LTD
:
:
v.
:
:
:
ANTHONY BUFFA
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------x

3:05 CV 769 (JGM)

DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2011

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR: (A) SUPPLEMENTAL POST-JUDGMENT
DISCOVERY ORDERS, (B) SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF IN ORDER OF AID OF EXECUTION,
AND (C) FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST MULTIPLE PARTIES, AND ON DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY DISCOVERY ORDERS, TERMINATE POST JUDGMENT
DISCOVERY AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Although familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this litigation is
presumed, the following is relevant to plaintiff’s pending motion. On December 15, 2005,
the parties consented to trial before this Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #20). On May 5, 2006, this
Magistrate Judge filed her Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granting in
part plaintiff’s motion to the extent that defendant is liable to plaintiff for a promissory note
[“Note”] made by defendant to the Fifth Third Bank, which Note was assigned to plaintiff on
April 14, 2005; a hearing was to be held as to the issue of damages. (Dkt. #28, at 2, 5-7;
see Dkt. #32). Eight days before the scheduled hearing date, the parties filed a Joint
Stipulation of Judgment in the amount of $180,000, so ordered by this Magistrate Judge on
July 20, 2006. (Dkts. ##33-35).1 Thus ended the simple and uncontested portion of this
litigation.
On August 2, 2006, plaintiff filed an application for a writ of execution for the total
unpaid judgment, which was issued two days later. (Dkt. #36). On November 15, 2006,

1

The Judgment was not entered by the Clerk’s Office until May 18, 2007. (Dkt. #45).

plaintiff filed its first Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination and Post-Judgment Discovery
(Dkt. #37), which this Magistrate Judge granted, by agreement of counsel. (Dkts. ##38-39).
On March 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a Motion for Charging Order against defendant’s limited
liability company, Endeavor Capital Management, LLC [“Endeavor, LLC”] for the collection
of the unpaid judgment, plus interest (Dkt. #40); on April 11, 2007, this Magistrate Judge
granted plaintiff’s motion, absent objection. (Dkt. #41). Two weeks later, on April 25, 2007,
plaintiff filed its Motion for Supplemental Post-Judgment Discovery Order. (Dkt. #42). On
June 14, 2007, this Magistrate Judge filed a Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Supplemental
Post-Judgment Discovery Order (Dkt. #48)[“June 2007 Ruling”] which denied plaintiff’s
motion without prejudice to renewal:
The evidence presented to the Court does not support a “reasonabl[e]
belie[f]” that Nancy Haar has assets of her husband, the judgment debtor,
thus preventing plaintiff from collecting on the unpaid judgment.
Nonetheless, the Court is of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to continue
to pursue limited discovery of the assets of the judgment debtor, if any, and
to engage in further discovery from defendant that would support its
allegation that defendant engaged in a “probable fraudulent transfer.”
(At 4).
More than one year later, on September 10, 2008, plaintiff filed its Motion to Compel
Compliance with Charging Order and Motion for Post Judgment Discovery Order (Dkts.
##49-50), regarding Endeavor, LLC and Emigrant Mortgage Co, Inc.; both motions were
granted, absent objection, on October 7, 2008. (Dkts. ##51-52). Shortly thereafter, on
November 17, 2008, plaintiff filed its Application for Wage Execution (Dkt. #53), which was
granted in an amount not to exceed $8.07/week prior to December 31, 2008 and not to
exceed $4.57/week starting on January 1, 2009. (Dkt. #58; see also Dkts. ##54-57).
On January 6, 2009, plaintiff next filed its Motion for Order Re: Post-Judgment

2

Discovery (Dkt. #59), which sought post-judgment discovery under CONN . GEN . STAT . § 52351b, namely production of defendant’s tax returns, both state and federal, along with
documents supporting those returns and the tax returns of Endeavor, LLC. Defendant
opposed this motion, on the grounds that neither Endeavor, LLC nor defendant’s wife, Nancy
Haar, were a judgment debtor, so that their tax returns and other financial information were
not subject to discovery by plaintiff under CONN . GEN . STAT . § 52-351b, and that
circumstances had not changed since the June 2007 Ruling. (Dkt. #60, at 1-3). Based upon
“the simple language” of CONN . GEN . STAT . § 52-351b(a) that “[a] judgment creditor may
obtain discovery from the judgment debtor, or from any third person the judgment creditor
reasonably believes, in good faith, may have assets of the judgment debtor . . . ” (emphasis
added), and given that “[n]ot a dime of [the] judgment has been paid by [defendant],”
despite the multiple post-judgment motions filed by plaintiff, this Magistrate Judge held in
her Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Re: Post-Judgment Discovery, filed January 27,
2009 (Dkt. #62)[“January 2009 Ruling”] that it was “appropriate for defendant, his wife, and
Endeavor, LLC to submit the requested documents to this Magistrate Judge for her in camera
review, to determine if indeed Ms. Haar and/or Endeavor, LLC are third persons who may
have assets of the judgment debtor.”
In accordance with the January 2009 Ruling, on February 29, 2009, defendant
submitted the multiple financial records for the years 2006 and 20072 to this Magistrate

2

The documents included: (1) the 2006 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040,
filed jointly by defendant and Haar, together with all supporting schedules; (2) the 2007 U.S.
Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, filed jointly by defendant and Haar, together with all
supporting schedules; (3) the 2006 U.S. Return of Partnership Income, Form 1065, for Endeavor,
LLC, together with all supporting schedules; (4) the 2007 U.S. Return of Partnership Income, Form
1065, for Endeavor, LLC, together with all supporting schedules; (5) the 2006 Joint Connecticut
Resident Income Tax Return, Form CT-1040, filed by defendant and Haar; (6) the 2007 Joint
Connecticut Resident Income Tax Return, Form CT-1040, filed by defendant and Haar; (7) the

3

Judge for her in camera review, after which this Magistrate Judge held in her Ruling
Following In Camera Review, filed March 3, 2009 (Dkt. #64)[“First March 2009 Ruling”] that
“none of the items contain any information that would support [plaintiff’s] allegation that
defendant engaged in a probable fraudulent transfer.” (At 4)(internal citations omitted).3
The First March 2009 Ruling continued:
However, in Endeavor, LLC’s 2006 Form 1065 and 2007 Form 1065,
there are significant travel expenses, especially in comparison to the total
expenses and gross receipts. In light of the deduction for “Haar Buffa
Vacation Expense,” there is enough of a red flag to require supplemental
documentation justifying such large sums as genuine business travel, as
opposed to personal travel.
(Id.).4 The First March 2009 Ruling required the submission of documentation for all travel
in excess of $500 to this Magistrate Judge’s Chambers for additional in camera review. (Id.).
Twenty days later, this Magistrate Judge filed the Ruling Following Second In Camera Review
(Dkt. #65), which agreed that Endeavor, LLC had “amply justified [the travel expenses] as
legitimate business travel, as opposed to personal travel [so that] no further disclosure to
plaintiff [was] necessary.” (At 3).
There was no further activity on the docket sheet for more than two years until June
6, 2011, when plaintiff filed its Motion for Supplemental Post-Judgment Discovery Orders and
Supplemental Relief in Order of Aid of Execution (Dkt. #67). On August 5, 2011, this

2006 Connecticut Composite Income Tax Return, Form CT-1065/CT-1120SI, for Endeavor, LLC; and
(8) the 2007 Connecticut Composite Income Tax Return, Form CT-1065/CT-1120SI, for Endeavor,
LLC .
3

The First March 2009 Ruling found that “[t]here [was] one suspicious item, an entry on
Endeavor, LLC’s 2007 Form 1065, showing a deduction for ‘Haar Buffa Vacation Expense,’ but the
amount [was] de minimis relative to the amount of the judgment here[,]” so that no disclosure of
these documents was required. (Id.).
4

See note 3 supra.

4

Magistrate Judge filed her Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Supplemental Post-Judgment
Discovery Orders and Supplemental Relief in Order of Aid of Execution (Dkt. #73)[“August
2011 Ruling”], which granted plaintiff’s motion in part. The August 2011 Ruling recounted
that the parties agreed that defendant Buffa is a private equity investor employed on a fulltime basis by Endeavor, LLC; defendant Buffa has a ninety-nine percent ownership in
Endeavor, LLC while his wife, Nancy Haar owns the remaining one percent interest; Haar
works on less than a full time basis for Endeavor, LLC, which is the only source of income
for the couple. (Id. at 5)(internal citations omitted). At the second deposition of defendant
Buffa, taken on May 12, 2011, at which he appeared without counsel, defendant Buffa
testified that he works more than fifty hours per week for Endeavor, LLC, including travel,
consisting of ten to twelve hours per day, five days a week, plus four to six hours during the
weekend, which adds up to fifty-four to sixty-six hours per week, for which he receives an
annual salary of $20,000; he further testified that he has not received any income from
Endeavor, LLC for the last five to six months. (Id.)(internal citations omitted). Defendant
Buffa also testified that Haar works for Endeavor, LLC six to eight hours per day, only three
to four days a week, which adds up to eighteen to thirty-two hours per week, a reduced
work load because her “focus” is on raising the couple’s children. (Id. at 5-6)(internal
citations omitted). Defendant Buffa further testified that Haar had received an annual salary
of $120,000 from Endeavor, LCC but for the last several years, had been paid between
$75,000 to $100,000 per year. (Id. at 6)(internal citations omitted). When defendant Buffa
was asked the reason for this obvious disparity in workload and commensurate pay,
defendant Buffa responded that he did not know the rationale behind this, despite being the
majority owner by a ratio of ninety-nine to one, and despite being the company’s managing

5

member; he testified that it was Haar’s decision about how she would be paid. (Id. at
6)(internal citations omitted).
The following colloquy occurred regarding this allocation:
Q: Okay. Is the decision to pay . . . Haar $120,000 and you $19,000
arbitrary?
A: What do you mean by “arbitrary?”
Q: Is there a rationale for it?
A: I don’t know.
Q: Sir, somebody has to decide that . . . Haar is going to be paid
$120,000; right?
A. It is my wife’s decision because she controls all the financial books
and checking accounts and records of the firm. I want to remain married.
And I want to see my daughter get out of high school. And to remain
married, I’ve made compromises to do what I need to do to keep a stable
home life and have my daughter get through high school and not get evicted
from my house or evicted from my marriage. So, I’ve, you know, if that’s
what you deem to be arbitrary, then it is arbitrary. It is her decision.
Q. Okay. So, if I’m understanding you, sir, the decision to pay . . .
Haar $120,000 and you $19,000 is because you have a lot of creditors.
A. No, it’s the decision of my wife to pay herself when she’s paid and
pay me what I’m paid because she wants to make sure she can cover the
expenses of the family.
Q. But why wouldn’t she be able to cover the expenses of the family
if she paid you $120,000?
A: Because I would not be able to keep up with that.
Q: Because you have creditors?
A: I have many creditors.
Q: Including Buckeye?
A: Correct.

6

(Id. at 6-7)(internal citations omitted).
Despite defendant Buffa’s argument that he mis-spoke or misunderstood the
questions asked at the second deposition without the benefit of counsel, and that his
testimony is in conflict with his U.S. individual tax returns, Form 1040, for the years 2007
through 2010, which show wages from Endeavor, LLC for $5,600 in 2007, $19,200 in 2008,
$19,200 for 2009, and $15,200 for 2010, with Haar receiving no wages “whatsoever” for the
years 2007-09, while the Schedule K-1 Forms for Endeavor, LLC properly allocate ninety-nine
percent profits and losses to defendant and one percent to Haar for the years 2007-09 (id.
at 8-9), the August 2011 Ruling held as follows:
Plaintiff’s counsel is correct that defendant’s testimony was indeed
“clear[] and unequivocal[,]” did not reflect any confusion or misunderstanding
regarding six separate questions posed to him (particularly given defendant’s
line of work and experience), and is clearly at variance with the IRS filings
made by defendant, Haar and Endeavor, LLC. For that reason alone, plaintiff
is entitled to limited, supplemental post-judgment discovery, so that it can
uncover whether there was a “diversion of the fruit of one’s labor”
arrangement, as reflected by defendant’s testimony. Therefore, at the
present time, and without prejudice to plaintiff seeking additional postjudgment discovery and other remedies in the future, it is hereby ORDERED
that Endeavor, LLC shall (a) appear (at a mutually agreeable time on or
before October 31, 2011), through a properly designated representative
(who may be Nancy Haar) to testify at a deposition in this matter concerning
the allocation of salary and/or distributions from Endeavor, LLC by and
between Anthony Buffa and Nancy Haar; and (b) shall produce, at least
twenty-one days before the deposition, any and all documents in its
possession concerning the allocation of salary and/or distributions from
Endeavor by and between Anthony Buffa and Nancy Haar.
(Id. at 9-10)(emphasis in original)(internal citations & footnote omitted).
On September 7, 2011, plaintiff filed its Motion for Supplemental Post-Judgment
Discovery Orders and Supplemental Relief in Order of Aid of Execution (Dkt. #74), which was

7

granted on October 5, 2011, defendant having filed no objection. (Dkts. ##75-76).5 That
motion sought, inter alia, an order directing defendant Buffa and/or Endeavor, LLC to provide
information regarding the document production and deposition ordered in the August 2011
Ruling, an order directing defendant Buffa to appear at a continued examination of judgment
debtor [“EJD”] to answer questions that he previously refused to answer, an order requiring
defendant Buffa to produce documents in advance of the continued EJD that he failed,
refused and/or neglected to produce previously, and attorney’s fees, in that informal
discussions between counsel on August 9, 2011, followed by a reminder letter on August 22,
2011, were not productive. (Dkt. #74, at 2-7 & Exhs. A-B). On October 24, 2011, defendant
Buffa filed a Motion to Enlarge Time to Conduct Deposition Pursuant to Court Order (Dkt.
#77), as to which plaintiff did not object; as a result, the motion was granted the next day
(Dkt. #78), extending the deadline from October 31, 2011 until December 15, 2011.
On October 26, 2011, plaintiff filed the pending Motion for: (A) Supplemental PostJudgment Discovery Orders, (B) Supplemental Relief in Order of Aid of Execution, and (c) a
Finding of Contempt Against Multiple Parties (Dkt. #79).6 On November 15, 2011, defendant
Buffa filed his brief in opposition and cross-Motion to Modify Discovery Orders, Terminate
Post Judgment Discovery and for Protective Order (Dkts. ##81-82).7 Eight days later, on

5

The Order, filed October 5, 2011 (Dkt. #76)[“October 2011 Order”] was quite specific,
including listing twelve categories of documents to be produced thirty days prior to the deposition.
6

The following eleven exhibits are attached: copies of correspondence between counsel,
dated August 9 & 22, October 11 & 18, and May 13, 2011 (Exhs. A-C, J-K); excerpts from
deposition of defendant Buffa, taken on May 12, 2011 (Exh. D); and copies of 2006, 2007, 2008,
2009 and 2010 U.S. Return of Partnership Income for Endeavor, LLC (Exhs. E-I).
7

The following six exhibits are attached: copy of letter from the Cadle Company to the Ohio
Secretary of State regarding plaintiff, dated June 23, 1998 (Exh. A); copy of Cadle Co. v. Mass. Div.
Banks, CV#2004-0101C (Mass. Super. Ct. Nov. 17, 2006)(Exh. B); copy of Endeavor, LLC and
defendant Buffa’s Liability Schedule as of September 30, 2011 (Exh. C); copy of entire deposition

8

November 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a brief in reply to its own motion and in opposition to
defendant Buffa’s motion.

(Dkt. #83).8

Thirteen days later, on December 6, 2011,

defendant Buffa filed a “Surreply Brief” (Dkt. #84), as to which plaintiff filed its Response the
next day. (Dkt. #85).
For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s Motion for: (A) Supplemental Post-Judgment
Discovery Orders, (B) Supplemental Relief in Order of Aid of Execution, and (c) a Finding of
Contempt Against Multiple Parties (Dkt. #79) is granted in part, and defendant Buffa’s CrossMotion to Modify Discovery Orders, Terminate Post Judgment Discovery and for Protective
Order (Dkt. #82) is granted in part.
I. DISCUSSION
Six days after the October 2011 Order was filed, defense counsel sent a letter to
plaintiff’s counsel, in which defendant Buffa designated himself as the representative of
Endeavor, LLC to testify as to allocation; plaintiff objected on the basis that defendant Buffa
already had testified that allocation was decided by Haar “because she controls all the
financial books and checking accounts and records” of Endeavor, LLC., and similarly objected
to defendant’s offer of a bookkeeper, arguing that “it is evident that . . . Haar – and only .
. . Haar – is the person who should testify.” (Dkt. #79, at 5-6 & Exhs. C-D). In addition,
defendant Buffa had offered to produce only the corporate tax returns of Endeavor, LLC and
the personal tax returns of Buffa and Haar, which he contended showed there was no
allocation; plaintiff objects on the same that the tax returns “simply do not allay [plaintiff’s]

transcript of defendant Buffa, taken on May 12, 2011 (Exh. D); copies of 1996, 1999, 2001, 2002,
2004, and 2005 IRS Account Transcript (Exh. E); and another copy of correspondence between
counsel, dated October 11, 2011 (Exh. F).
8

Attached were copies of the Debt Collector license to the Cadle Company, issued by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Banks and Loan Agencies (Exh. A).

9

concerns[,]” and the tax returns “create more questions than they answer because they
reveal ways in which the [a]llocation may be disguised through improper expenses and/or
other ways.” (Dkt. #79, at 6-7 & Exhs. E-I). According to plaintiff’s calculations, Endeavor,
LLC “has done very well over the last [five] years[,]” with total receipts from 2006 to 2010
of $2,704,818, of which “‘Other Deductions’ . . . ate up about [eighty percent] of the
income[,]” or $1,803,620.00. (Id. at 7-8 & Exhs. E-I). Particularly troubling to plaintiff are
the “professional fees” to accountants, lawyers, or consultants, totaling $1,316,749.00,
without back-up information, speculating that “[i]t would be easy enough to report $25,000
going to a ‘consultant’ who turns out to be . . . Haar.” (Id. at 8 & Exhs. E-I). Plaintiff
continues that “one of the most disturbing aspects of the [t]ax [r]eturns is that they reveal
precipitous increases in expenses that curiously occur contemporaneously with [plaintiff’s]
efforts and its focus on [defendant] Buffa’s income from Endeavor, LLC[,]” namely the
doubling of “professional” fees of $130,239 in 2006, to $266,478 in 2007, with a slight
decrease in 2008 to $239,637, and then rising to $322,789 in 2009 and $357,706 in 2010.
(Id. at 8-9 & Exhs. E-I).9 Plaintiff argues that despite an agreement to provide supporting
documents for the “big ticket” items, like professional fees, etc., such documents have not
been provided yet. (Id. at 9-10).
Plaintiff further argues that Haar should be ordered to appear to explain the

9

Defendant Buffa argues that plaintiff is incorrect in its calculation of these figures. (See
Dkt. #81, at 11-14). The numbers in the summary chart on page 8 of plaintiff’s brief are all
correct, except that “Other Deductions” for 2006 should be $234,786, not $231,789, and “Total
Professional Fees” for 2010 should be $322,706, not $322,606. Therefore, the typographical error
and error addition were in plaintiff’s favor, not defendant Bufffa’s favor.
However, with respect to “salary,” plaintiff’s figures were erroneous in that for 2006, the
amount was only $73,600 (not $72,000), was only $94,462 in 2008 and not the “balloon[ing]”
figure of $357,211, and then “dropped again” to $87,365 in 2009 and $45,341 in 2010. (Dkt. #79,
at 8-9 & Exhs. E-I).

10

information in the tax returns, that defendant Buffa has failed to comply with the October
2011 Order, and that on October 18, 2011, defense counsel advised that defendant Buffa
cannot, and will not, provide customer information, which plaintiff argues defendant should
have raised in any objection to plaintiff’s motion. (Id. at 10-12 & Exhs. A-B, J-K). Plaintiff
seeks $1,500 as attorney’s fees for the three motions it has filed in 2011. (Id. at 12-13).10
In his brief in opposition and cross-motion, defendant Buffa argues that plaintiff has
mis-characterized his deposition testimony and taken the quotes out of context (Dkt. #81,
at 6-10 & Exh. D); that the Court should prohibit plaintiff from extending discovery, and
liability for the judgment, to non-debtor Haar and Endeavor, LLC (id. at 10-11); that
Endeavor, LLC had no profits, so that there could be no improper allocation (id. at 11-15);
that defendant Buffa’s outstanding federal tax liens and other judgment obligations have
priority over plaintiff’s claims and extinguish any possibility of plaintiff locating any
unencumbered asset of income stream (id. at 15); that the Court should not condone
“plaintiff’s aggressive pillow talk collection strategy[]” (id. at 16-17); that defendant Buffa
has fully satisfied the prior court orders (id. at 17-19); that the scope and purpose of postjudgment discovery have been grossly exceeded (id. at 19-20); and that plaintiff has failed
to satisfy the requirements for contempt (id. at 20-22).11 Therefore, defendant Buffa asks
the Court to deny plaintiff’s motion, terminate post-judgment discovery, and enter a
protective order preventing plaintiff from pursuing additional discovery without first showing
good cause and receiving leave of the Court. (Id. at 22-23).

10

Although the caption of the motion seeks “A Finding of Contempt Against Multiple Parties”
(Dkt. #79, at 1), there is no discussion of contempt in the body of the motion itself. (See Dkt.
#81, at 20-22). Thus, the Court will not address the issue of contempt.
11

See note 10 supra.

11

In its reply brief and brief in opposition to defendant Buffa’s cross-motion, plaintiff
argues that defendant cannot relitigate arguments that already have been made and rejected
by the Court (Dkt. #83, at 2-3), that plaintiff did not mis-characterize defendant Buffa’s
deposition testimony (id. at 4), that this Court already has held that plaintiff is entitled to
post-judgment discovery from third parties, namely Endeavor, LLC and Haar (id. at 5), that
Endeavor, LLC generated more than $500,000 per year in revenue and that would have been
“easy enough to funnel money to . . . Haar through one of the broad categories of ‘expenses’
in the [t]ax [r]eturns” (id. at 5-6), that defendant Buffa’s other creditors have no bearing on
plaintiff’s right to conduct post-judgment discovery (id. at 6-7), that defendant Buffa’s ad
hominem attacks on plaintiff are “improper, incorrect, unsupported and irrelevant” (id. at 7
& Exh. A), that defendant Buffa has not complied with prior Court orders (id. at 8-9), that
the scope of post-judgment discovery is proper (id. at 9-10), and that contempt is proper (id.
at 10).12
In defendant Buffa’s reply brief with respect to his motion, he argues that there is no
documentary evidence that justifies plaintiff’s third-part discovery request, in that the “large
quantity of detained financial information [defendant] Buffa disclosed to . . . plaintiff” does
not contain “one single document which supports . . . plaintiff’s claim that [Endeavor, LLC]
engaged in an improper allocation of income” (Dkt. #84, at 1-2), that defendant Buffa’s
deposition testimony was “[e]quivocal, [c]onflicting” and did not support plaintiff’s third party
discovery requests” (id. at 2-4), and that several less intrusive alternatives exist to resolve
this discovery dispute, including an in camera review of records and plaintiff can proceed by

12

See note 10 supra.

12

interrogatory, rather than by deposition, of Haar and Endeavor, LLC (id. at 4-5).13 Plaintiff
objects to these less intrusive alternatives. (Dkt. #85, at 1-2).
All the activity in this file subsequent to the May 12, 2011 deposition is the direct
result of defendant appearing without counsel and his failure to oppose plaintiff’s Motion for
Supplemental Post-Judgment Discovery Orders and Supplemental Relief in Order of Aid of
Execution, filed September 7, 2011 (Dkt. #74), because “he could not retain counsel[]” for
financial reasons. (Dkt. #82, at 21 & Exh. D, at 18). Having made the decision not to have
the assistance of counsel at the deposition and not to oppose plaintiff’s September 7, 2011
motion, defendant cannot now attempt to “un-ring the bell.” Given the substantial amount
of time expended by plaintiff’s counsel, and the Court, on these matters, he is not entitled
to a judicial “do-over.” While defendant Buffa is correct that a review of the entire transcript
of May 12, 2011 reflects that defendant is in very deep financial trouble, with debts that
grossly exceed his assets, plaintiff’s counsel and defendant Buffa had an additional dialogue
about Haar receiving $120,000 in salary:
Q. . . . When you say . . . Haar makes the decision, are you saying
that she has the right to make a unilateral decision to pay herself $120,000?
A. She’s the only one who controls the accounts and the influx of
money. I have no authority over any of those accounts.
Q. Why?
A. Because I don’t think it’s prudent for me to have it.
Q. Why?
A. Given the amount of money I’ve lost and the amount of money
that I owe, it would imprudent for me to have it.

13

Although the brief is captioned as “Defendant’s Surreply” (Dkt. #84, at 1), as to which
plaintiff objects (Dkt. #85), as just indicated, it is actually a reply brief to its own motion.

13

(Dkt. #82, Exh. D, at 136-37). Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to some of the supplemental
post-judgment discovery sought, as follows:
(1) On or before January 17, 2012, defendant Buffa shall provide copies of the
Tax Returns sought by plaintiff, as well as all documents listed in ¶¶ (a) through (e) and (h)
through (l) on the second page of the October 2011 Order; with respect to ¶¶ (f) & (g),
defendant Buffa may, at this time, use abbreviations (initials, etc.) to identify the clients in
these two paragraphs, without prejudice to plaintiff seeking identification of these clients, as
necessary, at a future time;
(2) If after plaintiff’s counsel reviews these documents, he believes that it is still
necessary for him to depose Haar, he shall provide defense counsel with a brief summary of
the limited subjects about which he intends to question her;
(3) Plaintiff is entitled to $1,500 in reasonable attorney’s fees for the several motions
and briefs it has filed during the post-judgment discovery process;14 and
(4) There shall be no further post-judgment discovery in this case, beyond that
permitted above, without express leave of the Court upon good cause shown.
Dated this 16th day of December, 2011, at New Haven, Connecticut.

/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

14

This an extremely modest amount given the level of post-judgment activity in this case.

14