Dowdy, Jr. et al v. Veracity Financial Group, LLC.

Filing 21

ORDER granting 18 motion to compel. Defendant is ordered to comply with discoveryby answering Plaintiffs' interrogatories and producing the records requested in Plaintiffs' "Request for Production of Documents" by May 6, 2013. Signed on 4/16/13 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
JOHN DOWDY, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VERACITY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

6:12-cv-03121-DGK

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
This case arises out of Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendant Veracity Financial
Group, LLC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On September 24, 2012, the
Court granted a default judgment in favor of Plaintiffs (Doc. 17). Pending before the
Court is Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel Responses to Post-Judgment Discovery” (Doc.
18). Defendant failed to respond.

For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs’ motion is

GRANTED.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) provides that a “money judgment is
enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise,” and that the
procedure on execution, and in proceedings in aid of execution, “must accord with the
procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the
extent it applies.” Id. Rule 69(a)(2) provides that in aid of a judgment or execution, a
judgment creditor “may obtain discovery from any person—including the judgment
debtor—as provided in [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or by the procedure of the
state where the court is located.” Id. Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 76.28 allows postjudgment discovery of “matters ... relevant to the discovery of assets or income subject to

... the satisfaction of judgments.” Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Intern Inc., 160 F.3d 428,
430 (1998) (citing Mo. R. Civ. P. 76.28).
Here, Plaintiffs seek to serve Defendant with post-judgment interrogatories and
requests for production of documents in aid of the execution of their judgment. See Doc.
20. This procedure is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and
Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 76.28.

See Credit Lyonnais, 160 F.3d at 430

(discussing how parties have a right to conduct reasonable post-judgment discovery and
to inquire into the assets of a judgment debtor).
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to comply with discovery
by answering Plaintiffs’ interrogatories and producing the records requested in Plaintiffs’
“Request for Production of Documents” by May 6, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2013

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE