Renteria et al v. Canepa

Filing 73

ORDER granting 68 Second Motion for Supplementary Proceedings. Plaintiffs shall submit proposed order identifying time and place for examinations of Jonathan Steele and Ennis Jordan by 2/4/2014. Please see attached for further details. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/31/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

OSCAR RENTERIA, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EUGENE CLEVELAND CANEPA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 3:11-cv-00534-RCJ-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors’ Second Motion for
13
Supplementary Proceedings (#68), filed December 11, 2013; Defendant/Judgment Debtor’s
14
Response (#70), filed January 2, 2014; and Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors’ Reply (#72), filed
15
January 13, 2014.
16
Having secured a judgment in their favor, Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors request an order
17
requiring Jonathan Steele and Ennis Jordan to appear for examination pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
18
69 and Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 21.270 through NRS 21.340. Defendant/Judgment Debtor
19
Eugene Cleveland Canepa (“Canepa”) objects to the examination of Jonathan Steele arguing that it
20
is precluded by his blanket assertion of the accountant-client privilege set forth in NRS 49.135
21

through NRS 49.205.1 Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors reply that a blanket assertion of the privilege

22
is insufficient to prevent the examination as the privilege is narrowly construed. Moreover, it is
23
argued that the objection is premature as Canepa cannot anticipate the scope and nature of the
24
questions that may be asked.

Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors conclude that, regardless of Canepa’s

25
protestations, the examination should proceed and Canepa remains free to raise objections during
26
27
28

1

Canepa does not object to the examination of Ennis Jordan. Nor does he attempt to demonstrate

whether or how the privilege may apply to certain documents requested to be produced.

1

the examination itself.

2

As the Court previously noted, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 provides that the

3

procedure regarding “proceedings supplementary and in aid of judgment or execution–must accord

4

with the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

5

69(a)(1); see also Order (#26). Rule 69 provides that “[i]n aid of judgment or execution, the

6

judgment creditor or a successor in interest whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery

7

from any person–including the judgment debtor–as provided in these rules or by the procedure of

8

the state where the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). The scope of post-judgment

9

discovery is broad and the judgment-creditor is permitted to make a broad inquiry to discover any

10

hidden or concealed assets of a judgment-debtor. 1st Technology, LLC v. Rational Enterprises,

11

LTDA, 2007 WL 5596692 *4 (D. Nev.) (citation omitted). Rule 69 permits a judgment creditor to

12

obtain post-judgment discovery pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil

13

Procedure or pursuant to state law. Id. Under Nevada law:

14
15

A judgment creditor, at any time after the judgment is entered, is entitled to an
order from the court requiring the judgment debtor to appear and answer upon
oath or affirmation concerning his or her property, before:

16

(a) The judge or a master appointed by the judge; or

17

(b) An attorney representing the judgment creditor,

18

at a time and place specified in the order. No judgment debtor may be required to
appear outside the county in which the judgment debtor resides.

19
Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 21.270(1). “Witnesses may be required to appear and testify
20
before the judge or master conducting any proceeding under this chapter in the same manner as
21
upon the trial of an issue.” NRS 21.310.
22
The undersigned has reviewed the briefing and finds that the blanket assertion of the client23
accountant privilege is inappropriate. The case law is clear that the privilege does not preclude
24
examination or deposition of a litigant’s accountant altogether. See McNair v. Eighth Judicial
25
District Court, 110 Nev. 1284 (1994); Volvo Const. Equipment Rents, Inc. v. NRL Rentals, LLC,
26
2011 WL 3651266 (2011). Accordingly,
27
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors’ Second Motion for
28
2

1

Supplementary Proceedings (#68) is granted.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors shall submit a proposed order

3

identifying the time and place for the examinations Jonathan S. Steele, CPA, Steel & Associates,

4

LLC and Ennis Jordan and for such other proceedings as there may occur consistent with

5

proceedings supplementary to execution by Wednesday, February 5, 2014.

6

DATED: January 31, 2014.

7
8
9

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

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3