Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Annuity Trust et al v. Miller Building Group, LLC et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Compel Discovery 31 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a representative of Defendant Miller Building Group, LLC shall appear for a post-judgment deposition and produce the records requested in the notice of deposition dated October 13, 2015, at the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel on January 18, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery 30 is DENIED as moot . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to Defendant Miller Building Group, LLC at 2233 Olive Street, St. Louis, MO 63103. (copy mailed to Miller Building Group, LLC) Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 12/17/2015. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
IRON WORKERS ST. LOUIS DISTRICT
COUNCIL ANNUITY TRUST, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
MILLER BUILDING GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:14-CV-1298 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Compel Discovery.
(Doc. No. 31) Plaintiffs seek to compel a representative of Defendant Miller Building Group,
LLC to appear for a post-judgment deposition and produce the records requested in Plaintiffs’
notice of deposition. No response to the motion has been filed. For the following reasons, the
amended motion will be granted.
Background
Plaintiffs filed this action on July 23, 2014 to recover from Miller Building Group, LLC
delinquent fringe benefit contributions pursuant to Section 502 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (“ERISA”). On August 14, 2014, the parties stipulated to
the entry of consent judgment in the amount of $5,612.97. (Doc. No. 4)
Motion to Compel
Plaintiffs' motion to compel and the affidavit of attorney Michael A. Evans assert that on
October 13, 2015, Plaintiffs sent a notice of post-judgment deposition and request for production
of documents to a representative of Miller Building Group, LLC. The notice required the
1

attendance of such representative at the offices of Plaintiffs’ counsel on November 16, 2015 at
10:00 a.m., and the simultaneous production of requested documents relevant to Plaintiffs' efforts
to collect the judgment in this case. Defendant did not appear at the deposition or otherwise
contact Plaintiffs' counsel.
Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the “process to enforce a
judgment for the payment of money shall be a writ of execution, unless the court directs
otherwise.” Rule 69(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 69 further provides that the procedure on execution,
and in proceedings in aid of execution, “shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure
of the state in which the district court is held ... except that any statute of the United States
governs to the extent that it is applicable.” Id. Finally, Rule 69 provides that in aid of a judgment
or execution, a judgment creditor “may obtain discovery from any person, including the
judgment debtor, in the manner provided in [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or in the
manner provided by the practice of the state in which the district court is held.” Id. In the absence
of a controlling federal statute, a district court “has the same authority to aid judgment creditors
in supplementary proceedings as that which is provided to state courts under local law.”
Carpenters' District Council of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity v. Vehlewald Const. Co., 2008 WL
544977, at * 1-2 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 25, 2008) (quoting H.H. Robertson Co. v. V.S. DiCarlo Gen.
Contractors, Inc., 994 F.2d 476, 477 (8th Cir.1993)).
Plaintiffs seek to take a post-judgment deposition in aid of execution of their judgment.
This procedure is appropriate pursuant to Rules 69(a) and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. It appears to the Court from the affidavit of Plaintiffs' counsel that Defendant was
properly noticed for deposition but failed to appear. Plaintiffs' motion to compel should therefore
be granted, and a representative of Miller Building Group, LLC will be ordered to appear for
2

deposition at the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel, and produce the requested documents at the same
time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Compel Discovery [31]
is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a representative of Defendant Miller Building Group,
LLC shall appear for a post-judgment deposition and produce the records requested in the notice
of deposition dated October 13, 2015, at the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel on January 18, 2016 at
10:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery [30] is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order
to Defendant Miller Building Group, LLC at 2233 Olive Street, St. Louis, MO 63103.

Dated this 17th day of December, 2015.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3