The Board Of The Construction Industry And Laborers Health And Welfare Trust, et al. v. FF&E Logistical, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER re 31 Motion for Judgment Debtor Exam. With respect to the judgment debtor examination itself, the Court Grants that aspect of the motion as unopposed. Plaintiffs shall file a new proposed order by 8/4/2017. The motion for an order compelling the production of documents is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND LABORERS )
HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
FF&E LOGISTICAL, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-01289-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 31)

16

On July 11, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a second renewed motion for judgment debtor examination.

17

Docket No. 31. Plaintiffs seek an order setting a judgment debtor examination of Robert L. Ansara,

18

Defendant FF&E’s president, secretary, and treasure, as well as an order requiring production of documents.

19

Id. To date, no response has been filed. Accordingly, with respect to the judgment debtor examination

20

itself, the Court hereby GRANTS that aspect of the motion as unopposed. See Local Rule 7-2(d). No later

21

than August 4, 2017, Plaintiffs shall file a new proposed order with a specific date, time and location for

22

the judgment debtor examination to be conducted.1

23

Plaintiffs also seek an order requiring Mr. Ansara to produce certain documents at the judgment

24

debtor examination. See Docket No. 31 at 3; see also Docket No. 31-2 at 2-3. As an initial matter, the

25
26
27
28

1

It appears that the date currently included will not allow sufficient time for the production of
documents requested, as outlined below. The current proposed order also has the incorrect judge’s initials
with the case number. Compare Docket No. 31-2 at 1 with Docket No 16. Any new proposed order shall
provide the correct information.

1

Court does not disagree with Plaintiffs that they may properly seek documents in relation to a judgment

2

debtor examination. See Docket No. 31 at 3. Nonetheless, as the very case cited by Plaintiffs makes clear,

3

id., absent a showing that the judgment debtor failed to comply with such requests for production, courts

4

generally do not issue an order compelling the production of those documents. See Lozovskyy v. Vassilli

5

Oxenuk, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 178708, *4 (D. Nev. Dec. 18, 2012). Instead, the mechanism for seeking

6

such documents is to serve a request for production in accordance with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of

7

Civil Procedure. See, e.g., id.; Fagan v. Lawrence Nathan Assocs., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 169413, *4 (D.

8

Nev. Dec. 2, 2013); Guinn v. F.D.I.C., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79057, *4 (D. Nev. June 5, 2013); see also

9

Trustees of the Nevada Resort Association–International Alliance of the Theatrical Stage Employees and

10

Moving Picture Machine Operators v. All Access Support Group, Case No. 2:10-cv-1888-JCM-NJK,

11

Docket No. 26 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2014). Plaintiffs’ pending motion does not persuade the Court to depart

12

from this standard practice. Accordingly, the motion for an order compelling the production of documents

13

is DENIED, and Plaintiffs shall instead propound requests for production in accordance with Rule 34 of

14

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure such that the documents be produced at the examination.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: August 1, 2017

17
18

________________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2