Copper Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. et al v. Copper Sands Realty, LLC et al

Filing 911

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 908 the motion to stay is DENIED as moot, and 905 the motion for judgment debtor examination is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/2/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15

COPPER SANDS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff(s), )
)
v.
)
)
COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s). )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:10-cv-00510-GMN-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 905, 908)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant Cannon’s motion for judgment debtor examination. Docket

17

No. 905. Plaintiff HOA filed an untimely response in opposition, Docket No. 906,1 and Cannon filed a

18

reply, Docket No. 909. Plaintiff also filed a motion to stay the examination pending resolution of its

19

motion to amend judgment. Docket No. 908; see also Docket No. 897 (motion to amend judgment). The

20

Court finds the motions properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons

21

discussed below, the motion to stay is DENIED as moot, and the motion for judgment debtor examination

22

is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

As the motion was filed on September 7, 2017, the response was due September 21, 2017. See
Local Rule 7-2(b) (creating 14-day deadline to respond to all motions other than those seeking summary
judgment); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (2016 amendment, removing service by electronic means as a type
of service triggering an additional three days being added to deadlines). Plaintiff filed its response in the
late afternoon of September 22, 2017. See Docket No. 906 (notice of electronic filing). Despite the
untimeliness of Plaintiff’s response, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider it.

1

I.

MOTION TO STAY

2

Plaintiff has moved to stay the judgment debtor examination in light of its pending motion to amend

3

judgment. Docket No. 908; see also Docket No. 897 (motion to amend judgment).2 Chief United States

4

District Judge Gloria M. Navarro has since denied the underlying motion to amend judgment. Docket No.

5

910. Accordingly, the motion to stay is DENIED as moot.

6

II.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMINATION

7

Cannon’s motion for judgment debtor examination seeks both an order requiring Plaintiff to appear

8

for a judgment debtor examination and an order to produce documents. See Docket No. 905 at 5-8. Aside

9

from its arguments regarding a stay, Plaintiff does not meaningfully oppose the motion. See Docket No.

10

906. Nonetheless, the Court will review in this instance the arguments presented by Cannon.

11

With respect to Cannon’s request for Plaintiff to appear for a judgment debtor examination, the

12

Court agrees that Cannon is entitled to a judgment debtor examination as a general matter. The Court

13

denies without prejudice, however, Cannon’s request that the judgment debtor examination be held before

14

a judge. See Docket No. 905 at 5 (requesting order that Plaintiff “appear before the Court to undergo

15

examination”). Nevada statute permits the setting of a judgment debtor examination to occur either before

16

a judge or before an attorney in a manner akin to the taking of a deposition. NRS 21.270. It appears

17

Cannon is seeking that the judgment debtor examination be held before a judge so that Cannon can orally

18

request follow-up relief at the examination. See Docket No. 905 at 8. Generally speaking, parties should

19

submit requests for relief by filing a written request on the docket, and Cannon fails to explain why the

20

Court should issue writs orally from the bench. Moreover, Cannon fails to explain why it cannot seek any

21

appropriate writs from the Court following the completion of a judgment debtor examination taken before

22

an attorney.3 For these reasons, the Court agrees that Cannon is entitled to a judgment debtor examination

23
24
25
26
27

2

The motion eludes to the potential that Plaintiff will file an appeal. Docket No. 908 at 6. The
instant motion seeks a stay pending this Court’s ruling on the motion to amend. See, e.g., id. at 3 (asserting
that there should be a stay “PENDING THE COURT’S FINAL DECISION” (emphasis in original)). To
the extent Plaintiff was attempting to seek a stay pending appeal, that relief was not sought in a clear manner
in its motion and, therefore, it is not properly before the Court at this time.
3

28

The Court’s calendar is full for some time. From a practical standpoint, having an attorney
conduct the judgment debtor examination will invariably result in it happening sooner.
2

1

of Plaintiff, but declines at this time to issue an order that the judgment debtor examination be held before

2

a judge.

3

With respect to Cannon’s request for an order that Plaintiff produce documents, that Court also

4

declines to order such relief at this time. “[A]bsent a showing that the judgment debtor failed to comply

5

with [previous] requests for production, courts generally do not issue an order compelling the production

6

of those documents.” See, e.g., Bd. Of Trustees v. FF&E Logistical, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 121264,

7

at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2017) (citing Lozovskyy v. Vassilli Oxenuk, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 178708, *4 (D.

8

Nev. Dec. 18, 2012)). “Instead, the mechanism for seeking such documents is to serve a request for

9

production in accordance with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See, e.g., id. (collecting

10

cases). Here, Cannon has provided no reason why a Court order is needed, rather than seeking production

11

of documents through serving a request.

12

In short, the motion for judgment debtor examination is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part

13

without prejudice. More particularly, the Court finds that Cannon is entitled to a judgment debtor

14

examination of Plaintiff generally. To the extent Cannon would like to have an attorney conduct that

15

examination and itself seek the production of documents as outlined above, it may file a proposed order

16

identifying a particular time and place for the judgment debtor examination to occur. To the extent Cannon

17

continues to seek either that the judgment debtor examination occur before a judge or that the Court order

18

production of documents, then Cannon must file a renewed motion for judgment debtor examination

19

addressing the concerns outlined above.

20

III.

21
22

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the motion to stay is DENIED as moot, and the motion for

judgment debtor examination is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: October 2, 2017

25
26
27

________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
3