Guinn et al v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al

Filing 142

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part without prejudice 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , and 141 Ex Parte Motions for Judgment Debtor Examinations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/5/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

JEFFREY B. GUINN, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
)
CORPORATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:09-cv-01809-PMP-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Judgment Creditor Federal Deposit Insurance

14

Corporation’s, as Receiver for Community Bank of Nevada, (“FDIC-R”) Ex Parte Motions for Ten

15

Judgment Debtor Examinations (#132 - #141), filed on June 4, 2013.

16
17

BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2013, judgment was entered against the debtors listed in FDIC-R’s Ex Parte

18

Motions with the Final Judgment Order dated April 29, 2013. See Orders #120-129, #131. In this

19

motion, FDIC-R requests an order scheduling judgment debtor examinations. Additionally, FDIC-

20

R requests that the judgment debtors be forbidden from disposing of, transferring, or concealing

21

any property not exempt from execution. Finally, FDIC-R requests that the Court order the

22

production of documents in advance of the examinations.

23

DISCUSSION

24

A.

25

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 21.270.1(b) provides that a judgment creditor, at any time

Judgment Debtor Examinations

26

after the judgment is entered, is “entitled to an order from the judge of the court requiring the

27

judgment debtor to appear and answer upon oath or affirmation concerning his or her property.”

28

Such an examination may occur before the judge or master appointed by the judge or an attorney
representing the judgment creditor. Id. NRS 21.270 further provides that “[n]o judgment debtor

1
2

may be required to appear outside the county in which he resides.”
The Court agrees that the requested judgment debtor examinations are authorized under the

3

aforementioned law. Accordingly, it will enter an order that the judgment debtors identified in

4

FDIC-R’s Ex Parte Motions be subject to examinations on the dates and times outlined in those

5

motions.

6

B.

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 permits a judgment creditor to obtain post-judgment

Discovery

8

discovery pursuant to either the procedures set forth under the law of the state where the court is

9

located or a federal statute. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 69(a); see also Alcalde v. NAC Real Estate

10

Investments & Assignments, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 969, 971 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“The judgment

11

creditor may also propound discovery to the judgment debtor, including requests for production

12

and/or inspection of documents.”). The scope of post-judgment discovery is broad; the judgment-

13

creditor is permitted to make a broad inquiry to discover any hidden or concealed assets of a

14

judgment-debtor. See 1st Technology, LLC v. Rational Enterprises, LTDA, et al., 2007 WL

15

5596692 *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 13, 2007) (citation omitted) (allowing post-judgment discovery to gain

16

information relating to the existence or transfer of the judgment debtor’s assets). Further, in aid

17

obtaining information about a judgment debtor’s assets “[w]itnesses may be required to appear and

18

testify before the judge or master conducting any proceeding under this chapter in the same manner

19

as upon the trial of an issue.” See NRS 21.310.

20

The Court finds that there is good cause for the requested discovery because it is tailored to

21

identify assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment in this case. However, the Court notes that

22

discovery requests must conform to the Federal Rule or “the procedure of the state where the court

23

is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). Accordingly, FDIC-R should propound the requests for

24

production of documents in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 along with their

25

request that the documents be produced prior to the examination. The Court finds that it is not

26

necessary at this time to issue an order compelling the judgment debtors to produce the requested

27

discovery as they have not failed to comply with discovery requests. As a result, the Court will

28

deny FDIC-R’s request with respect to the production of documents, without prejudice.
2

1

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Ex Parte

3

Motions for Ten Judgment Debtor Examinations (#132 - #141) are granted in part and denied in

4

part without prejudice as stated above.

5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment debtors shall not dispose of, transfer, or
conceal any property not exempt from execution.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order shall be personally served upon the

8

judgment debtors at least fourteen (14) calendar days before their scheduled examination. Failure

9

to appear may subject the judgment debtor to punishment for contempt of court.

10

DATED this 5th day of June, 2013.

11
12
13

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3