COOPERATIVE FINANCE ASSOCIATION INC v. MCCLESKEY
ORDER GRANTING 13 Motion to Compel. Defendant Stuart McCleskey has through and including January 5, 2018 to respond to Cooperative Finance's post-judgment interrogatories. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 12/8/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
THE COOPERATIVE FINANCE
STUART EUGENE MCCLESKEY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-314 (MTT)
The Plaintiff, Cooperative Finance, moves to compel the Defendant, Stuart
McCleskey, to answer post-judgment interrogatories. Doc. 13. As discussed below, the
motion is GRANTED, and McCleskey is ORDERED to respond to Cooperative
Finance’s post-judgment interrogatories by January 5, 2018.
Cooperative Finance and McCleskey and Defendant executed a loan agreement,
promissory note, and security agreement dated April 24, 2014. Doc. 1-1. The
promissory note’s original principal amount was $250,000, to be due on February 15,
2015, and the agreed interest rate was the Cooperative Finance Association’s published
base rate plus 2.00%. Id. at 5. Defendant defaulted on the promissory note by failing to
make payments when due. Doc. 1 at 3.
On June 30, 2016, Cooperative Finance filed suit against McCleskey, alleging
that McCleskey breached his contractual duties on the promissory note and seeking
attorney’s fees and expenses. Doc. 1. McCleskey failed to plead or otherwise defend
against the suit, and on October 27, the Court granted Cooperative Finance’s motion for
default judgment. Doc. 9. On November 4, judgment was entered for Cooperative
Finance against McCleskey in the amount of $338,102.58. Doc. 10.
Now, Cooperative Finance moves to compel post-judgment interrogatories. Doc.
13. McCleskey has not responded to the motion.
Judgment creditors are entitled to discovery, including interrogatories, “from any
person—including the judgment debtor”—in aid of the judgment or execution. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 69(a)(2). Responding parties must answer interrogatories within 30 days after
being served, unless otherwise stipulated to or ordered by the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(b)(2). Parties seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer when
the responding party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).
As Cooperative Finance outlines in its motion, on June 5, 2017, Cooperative
Finance served via first-class mail its “First Post-Judgment Interrogatories to Judgment
Debtor Stuart Eugene McCleskey.” Doc. 13 at 1. McCleskey failed to respond, despite
the counsel for Cooperative Finance providing the counsel for McCleskey an extension
of time to respond to the interrogatories. Id. at 2. On August 24, Cooperative Finance
moved to compel. Id. at 3. McCleskey never responded to the motion.
The Court finds that Cooperative Finance was entitled to post-judgment
interrogatories from McCleskey and that McCleskey has failed to respond to those
interrogatories. Accordingly, McCleskey is hereby ORDERED to respond to
Cooperative Finance’s post-judgment interrogatories by January 5, 2018. Failure to
timely respond the interrogatories as ordered by the Court will result in sanctions,
possibly including a finding that he is contempt of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii),
(d)(3). Further, unless McCleskey shows “substantial justif[ication]” or “other
circumstances mak[ing] an award of expenses unjust,” McCleskey will be required to
pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by his failure to
respond to the interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).
For the reasons discussed above, the Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 13) is
GRANTED. McCleskey is hereby ORDERED to respond to Cooperative Finance’s
post-judgment interrogatories by January 5, 2018.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of December, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?