BEAUTYMAN et al v. LAURENT et al

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 3/2/21. 3/2/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(rf, )

Case 2:17-cv-05804-GJP Document 99 Filed 03/02/21 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL J. BEAUTYMAN and
CIVIL ACTION
MICHAEL J. BEAUTYMAN FAMILY
NO. 17-5804
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAVID LAURENT also known as DAVID
J. LEHARVEO,
Defendants.
PAPPERT, J.

March 2, 2021
MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Michael J. Beautyman and Michael J. Beautyman Family Limited
Partnership (collectively “Beautyman”) have renewed a motion to compel full and
complete responses to interrogatories in aid of execution (ECF 97; see also ECF 89) in
connection with the Judgment entered against Defendant David Laurent, a/k/a David
J. Leharveo. (ECF 67.) Beautyman also seeks to hold Laurent in contempt for his
failure to respond. (ECF 97.) The Court grants the motion to the extent that it seeks to
compel Laurent’s interrogatory responses and denies it without prejudice to the extent
that it seeks to hold Laurent in contempt.
I
On October 3, 2019, after a trial and in accordance with the jury’s verdict (ECF
68), the Court entered Judgment in favor of Beautyman and against Laurent in the
amount of $135,689.68 for Laurent’s destruction of the premises which Beautyman
rented to him and his other breaches of a lease contract between the parties. (ECF 67.)
On January 24, 2020, Laurent appealed to the Third Circuit. (ECF 83.) Three days

Case 2:17-cv-05804-GJP Document 99 Filed 03/02/21 Page 2 of 5

later, Laurent filed a motion seeking to quash the execution of the judgment against
him, citing his appeal. (ECF 84.)
The next day, Beautyman served interrogatories in aid of execution upon
Laurent seeking information about his assets. (See ECF 97-1 at 1.) When Laurent did
not respond to the Interrogatories by February 27, 2020, counsel for Beautyman
emailed him to remind him his responses were due that day and to ask when his
answers could be expected. (Id. at 2.) Laurent said he would not respond to the
Interrogatories unless Beautyman answered the interrogatories Laurent had served on
Beautyman. (Id.) Because Laurent did not respond to Beautyman’s Interrogatories,
Beautyman filed a motion on March 6, 2020 seeking to compel Laurent’s response.
(ECF 89.)
The Court then placed this matter in suspense pending resolution of Laurent’s
appeal. (ECF 92.) The Third Circuit affirmed the Judgment against Laurent on
October 23, 2020. (ECF 94.) The Court entered an Order on October 28, 2020 mooting
Laurent’s motion seeking to quash the execution of the judgment and directing
Beautyman to inform the court if it intended to renew its motion to compel responses to
its interrogatories in aid of execution. (ECF 95.) A day later, Beautyman told the
Court it would renew its motion. (ECF 96.) On November 11, 2020, Beautyman filed a
renewed motion to compel Laurent’s interrogatory responses and moved to hold
Laurent in contempt. (ECF 97.) Although the Court directed Laurent to respond on or
before November 16, 2020 (ECF 95), Laurent has not done so.
I
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 provides that “[i]n aid of the judgment or

2

Case 2:17-cv-05804-GJP Document 99 Filed 03/02/21 Page 3 of 5

execution, the judgment creditor . . . may obtain discovery from any person – including
the judgment debtor – as provided in these rules or by the procedure for the state where
the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2) (emphasis added). Discovery under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(1) must be “relevant” and “proportional” to
the case’s needs. 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 69 discovery “‘must be calculated to
assist in collecting on a judgment.’” Haiying Xi v. Shengchun Lu, 804 F. App'x 170, 173
(3d Cir. Feb. 14, 2020) (quoting EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 207 (2d
Cir. 2012)). “[A]ll discovery procedures provided in the [Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure] are available” in aid of execution on a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 advisory
committee’s note. “‘[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer or response’” to a
Rule 69 discovery request “‘must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or
respond,’” and supports a motion to compel. Xi, 804 F. App’x at 173 (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(a)(4)).
Beautyman is entitled to the discovery it seeks, as it is relevant and proportional
to its efforts to enforce and collect on the still-unsatisfied judgment against Laurent.
Laurent has not objected to Beautyman’s renewed motion and he shall provide his full
and complete interrogatory responses within seven days of this decision.
II
Beautyman also seeks sanctions against Laurent for contempt. Civil contempt
“is a ‘severe remedy, and should not be resorted to where there is fair ground of doubt

“Information that could not possibly lead to executable assets” is not relevant. Republic of
Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134, 144 (2014). Also, the Court may limit discovery that
is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Laurent, however,
has not objected to the information Beautyman seeks to compel.
1

3

Case 2:17-cv-05804-GJP Document 99 Filed 03/02/21 Page 4 of 5

as to the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct.’” First Niagara Risk Mgmt., Inc. v.
Kolongowski, 16-0719, 2017 WL 660855, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2017) (quoting Cal.
Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609, 618 (1885)). Before the Court may
hold Laurent in civil contempt, Beautyman must show that: (1) a valid court order
existed; (2) Laurent had knowledge of it; and (3) Laurent disobeyed the order. F.T.C. v.
Lane Labs-USA, Inc., 624 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2010). There must be “clear and
convincing evidence” to establish these elements and any ambiguities must be resolved
in Laurent’s favor. See John T. v. Del. Cnty. Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 552 (3d
Cir. 2003).
Beautyman argues Laurent should be held in contempt because he “has been
ignoring the Orders of the Court throughout the course of proceedings . . . .” 2 (ECF 971 at 5.) It contends the first element of civil contempt is satisfied by the Court’s
October 28, 2020 Order. (Id. at 6; see ECF 95 (Order).) It argues the second element –
Laurent’s knowledge of the October 28 Order – is met because the Order was served on
Laurent via the Court’s ECF filing system. (Id.; see also ECF 28 (Order granting
Laurent ECF access).) Beautyman contends the third element is satisfied because
Laurent did not respond to the renewed motion to compel his interrogatory responses.
(ECF 97-1 at 6.) As a sanction, Beautyman seeks a fine of $100 per day until Laurent
provides full, complete and verified responses. (ECF 97-1 at 7.) It also seeks $3,882.20
in attorney’s fees incurred in connection with preparing its motions to compel Laurent’s
responses. (Id. at 6-7.)

The case was reassigned to this Court from Judge Kelly on January 29, 2020 (ECF 89), after
the trial and after many of the “examples of Laurent’s flouting the legal system” cited in
Beautyman’s brief. (ECF 97-1 at 5-6.)
2

4

Case 2:17-cv-05804-GJP Document 99 Filed 03/02/21 Page 5 of 5

Although Laurent has not cooperated with Beautyman’s efforts to execute on the
judgment against him, the Court will not yet hold him in contempt. The Court’s
October 28, 2020 Order did not unambiguously require a response to the interrogatories
in aid of execution. It only directed Laurent to respond to any renewed motion to
compel his response to Beautyman’s interrogatories. Although he filed no response, due
process requires “notice and a hearing before a finding of contempt is made and before
the imposition of contempt sanctions so that the parties have an opportunity to explain
the conduct deemed deficient and that a record will be available to facilitate appellate
review.” Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1311, 1322 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation,
internal quotation and ellipses omitted).
Beautyman’s request for an order of contempt is denied without prejudice to
renewal if Laurent does not provide full, complete and verified responses to
Beautyman’s interrogatories within seven days. If Laurent does not do so, Beautyman
may again seek to hold Laurent in contempt and may ask the Court to impose
appropriate sanctions following a hearing. 3
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
________________________________
GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.

Sanctions for civil contempt are “penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court
order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an
ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Int’l Union, United Mine
Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994). They may include fines, incarceration and/or a
reimbursement of costs incurred while seeking to obtain compliance. See Pasternack v. Klein, No. 142275, 2017 WL 1508970, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2017) (“A fine of between $100 and $1,000 per day
is often used to coerce compliance with court orders.”); id. at *2 (“The judge may also jail an
individual found in contempt of court, provided that the contemnor can avoid or terminate his
confinement by showing compliance with the Court’s order.”).
3

5