Bradt v. Corriette et al

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART #25 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (dm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
KEVIN BRADT
V.
ADRIAN CORRIETTE et al.

§
§
§
§
§

A-16-CV-805-LY

ORDER
Before the Court are Kevin Bradt’s Motion to Compel Discovery Answers and Responses
from Judgment Debtors and for Costs Incurred (Dkt. No. 25); Adrian Corriette and Wallerand
Holdings, LLC’s Response (Dkt. No. 26); and Amended Response (Dkt. No. 29). The District Court
referred the discovery dispute to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for resolution pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), FED. R. CIV. P. 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules.
I. Background
This case was removed from state court by Defendants. Several months later, the parties
notified the Court they had settled the case, (Dkt. No. 18), and on February 2, 2017, they jointly
sought entry of an Agreed Judgment (Dkt. No. 22). On February 3, 2017, the District Judge signed
the Agreed Judgment and filed it in this case. Dkt. No. 23. Among other things, the judgment
ordered Defendants to pay Plaintiff $118,000.00 along with post-judgment interest. Id.
Several months later, Bradt propounded post-judgment discovery on Defendants. Defendants
responded through the same counsel who had represented them prior to the settlement. Bradt felt
that several of the responses and objections were incomplete or improper, and, through the motion
now before the Court, moved to compel more complete answers. On the date a response was due,
Defendant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw, and a response to the motion to compel. The
motion to withdraw stated that the Defendants had “failed to communicate with their lead attorney

. . . concerning critical matters and have failed to submit payment for legal services previously
rendered.” Dkt. No. 24 at 1. In the terse response, counsel stated that she had forwarded the motion
to compel to her clients and had not received directions about how to respond, and thus requested
that the Court permit the Defendants additional time to respond, either pro se or with new counsel.
The Court thereafter denied counsel leave to withdraw, because “efficiency dictates that counsel
defend th[e] objections [she made] and respond to the motion to compel prior to withdrawal.” Dkt.
No. 28. The Court thus ordered Defendants to file a substantive response to the motion to compel,
which they have timely done.
II. Analysis
Rule 69(a)(2) permits a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from any person, including the
judgment debtor, to identify assets upon which execution may be made. FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(2).
The scope of post-judgment discovery is “very broad.” F.D.I.C. v. LeGrand, 43 F.3d 163, 172 (5th
Cir. 1995).
The purpose of discovery under Rule 69(a)(2) is to allow the judgment creditor to
identify assets from which the judgment may be satisfied and consequently, the
judgment creditor should be permitted to conduct a broad inquiry to uncover any
hidden or concealed assets of the judgment debtor.
13 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FED. PRAC. CIV. § 69.04 (2008). Rule 37(a) governs
motions to compel discovery responses. A party resisting discovery must show specifically how
each discovery request is not relevant or otherwise objectionable. McLeod, Alexander, Powel &
Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990).
Bradt’s motion to compel is directed to interrogatories and requests for production
propounded on both Defendants. The 92 interrogatories were directed only to Corriette, and many
of them were aimed at identifying assets of Corriette’s spouse and family. Corriette partially
2

answered the interrogatories and lodged objections to the remainder. Bradt also propounded 30
requests for production on each Defendant. Neither Defendant responded to the document requests.
In the response, Defendants object to discovery seeking information about Corriette’s spouse’s
assets. They argue that the information is irrelevant because Corriette and his spouse reside in New
York, and New York is not a community property state, so Corriette’s spouse’s property is not
subject to execution. They argue that the discovery should be limited to Adrian Corriette’s or
Wallerand’s property, and, at least as to Corriette’s assets, that information was provided in the
interrogatory answers. Additionally, Defendants assert that they intend to pay the judgment in full
by December 15, 2017, at which time the Motion to Compel would be moot.1
To the extent that the interrogatories inquire into Corriette’s wife’s assets, the Court will
sustain the Defendants’ objections, as the Court agrees that such information is not relevant to
collecting the judgment. With regard to the Requests for Production, because the Defendants have
offered no explanation for their failure to respond, and failed to object to any of the requests, the
Defendants are obligated to provide responsive documents. By not timely responding or objecting,
they waived any objections they might have had. The Court will therefore grant the motion to
compel as to the requests for production. But the Court will stay the effectiveness of this latter order
until December 15, 2017, the date by which Defendants have stated they will pay the judgment. In
other words, by December 15, 2017, Defendants must either pay the judgment or produce responsive
documents.

1

As of this date, the Court has not been notified of any payment, and therefore assumes that
the judgment has not yet been satisfied.
3

Bradt also seeks an award of fees and expenses incurred in bringing this motion. Rule 37
states that if a court grants a motion to compel, it must require the party whose conduct necessitated
the motion to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion unless the
position advanced by the other party was “substantially justified” or “other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjust.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A) & (B). The Court finds that, because
Defendants’ position on the interrogatories was substantially justified, and because they have
represented to the Court that they intend to pay the judgment within ninety (90) days, an award of
expenses at this time is unwarranted.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Discovery
Answers and Responses from Judgment Debtors and for Costs Incurred (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to the interrogatories, and
GRANTED as to the requests for production. Adrian Corriette and Wallerand Holdings, LLC, are
ORDERED to respond to the Requests for Production by December 15, 2017, unless the judgment
in this case is paid in full prior to that date. Defendants are WARNED that the failure to timely
respond will likely result in the imposition of any costs incurred by Plaintiff in seeking additional
relief from the Court.
SIGNED this 28th day of November, 2017.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4