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

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Compel 6 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 1, 2014, at the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel on Monday, January 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery 5 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, Missouri 63103.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/12/15. (LGK)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Case No. 4:14-CV-01298-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 6)
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. Plaintiffs’ amended motion incorporates by reference the memorandum and affidavit
of counsel filed with their original motion to compel. (Doc. Nos. 5-1, -2) For the following
reasons, the amended motion will be granted.
Background
Plaintiffs filed this action on July 23, 2014, to recover from Defendant Miller Building
Group, LLC (“Miller Group”) delinquent fringe benefit contributions pursuant to Section 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) (“ERISA”). A consent
judgment was granted in favor of Plaintiffs on August 14, 2014 in the amount of $5,612.97.
(Doc. No. 4)
Motion to Compel

1

Plaintiffs' motion to compel and the affidavit of attorney Michael E. Evans assert that on
October 1, 2014, Plaintiffs sent a notice of post-judgment deposition to Miller Group. The notice
required the attendance of a representative of Miller Group at the offices of Plaintiffs’ counsel on
November 3, 2014 at 11:00 a.m., and the simultaneous production of requested documents
relevant to Plaintiffs' efforts to collect the judgment in this case. Miller Group 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 Miller Group was
2

properly noticed for deposition but failed to appear. Plaintiffs' motion to compel should therefore
be granted, and a representative of defendant Miller Building Group, LLC, will be ordered to
appear for 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 [6] 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 1, 2014, at the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel on Monday, January
26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery [5] 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, Missouri 63103.

Dated this 12th day of January, 2015.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3