National Ass. of Government Employees, Inc. v. National Emergency Medical Services Ass., et al

Filing 116

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. NAGE has met its burden to certify a good-faith attempt toconfer with the party failing to produce discovery. Therefore,and given that Colcord filed no opposition, I ALLOW NAGE's motion to compel Docket No. 114 and order Colcord to respond to all pending discovery requests within thirty days of this orders issuance. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
NATIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
and
TORREN K. COLCORD,
Defendants-Petitioners.

)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL NO. 13-10854-PBS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

May 22, 2015
Saris, Chief Judge.
INTRODUCTION
On February 11, 2015, the Court awarded a judgment in favor
of the plaintiff, National Association of Government Employees
(NAGE), in the amount of $260,064. See National Ass’n of Gov’t
Employees, Inc. V. National Emergency Med. Servs. Assoc., Inc.,
2015 WL 457910 at *6 (D. Mass. Feb. 4, 2015). That judgment is
joint and several as to both defendants, National Emergency
Medical Services Association (NEMSA), a national labor union, and
Torren K. Colcord (Colcord), NEMSA’s executive director. Id.
NEMSA has since filed for bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362.
1

Docket No. 110. NAGE sought to enforce the judgment against
Colcord and to elicit post-judgment discovery under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 69(1)(2). NAGE now moves to compel Colcord to respond to its
post-judgment discovery requests in aid of execution of judgment.
Docket No. 114. Colcord did not file an opposition.
DISCUSSION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2) permits a judgment creditor to
“obtain discovery from any person – including the judgment
debtor.” “The rules governing discovery in postjudgment execution
proceedings are quite permissive,” Republic of Argentina v. NML
Capital, Ltd., 134 S.Ct. 2250, 2254 (2014), and “[l]iberal
discovery is afforded to judgment creditors” under Rule 69.
ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Chiang, 276 F.R.D. 402, 404 (D. Mass.
2011) (internal quotation omitted). The “presumption is in favor
of full discovery of any matters arguably related to the
creditor’s efforts to trace the debtor’s assets and otherwise to
enforce its judgment.” Id. Additionally, under Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1), “a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery” if it has “in good faith conferred or attempted to
confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or
discovery.”
NAGE represents that it has attempted to obtain postjudgment discovery from Colcord since March 16, 2015, when it
served Colcord with its First Set of Interrogatories in Aid of

2

Execution of Judgment. Docket No. 114-2. Colcord’s attorney
confirmed receipt of these discovery requests and indicated he
had forwarded them to Colcord. Id. at Ex. A-2, ¶¶ 3-6. After
thirty days had elapsed and Colcord had not replied, NAGE sought
in good faith to communicate with Colcord’s counsel. Id. at ¶ 7.
Neither Colcord nor his counsel made any response. Id. at ¶ 9.
NAGE then spoke with Colcord’s counsel by phone, at which point
counsel said he could not confirm whether discovery responses
were forthcoming. Id. at ¶ 10.
NAGE has met its burden to certify a good-faith attempt to
confer with the party failing to produce discovery. Therefore,
and given that Colcord filed no opposition, I ALLOW NAGE’s motion
to compel (Docket No. 114) and order Colcord to respond to all
pending discovery requests within thirty days of this order’s
issuance.
/s/ Patti B. Saris
Patti B. Saris
Chief United States District Judge

3