Takano v. Super Steam of Austin, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 20 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Susan Hightower. (dm)

Case 1:17-cv-00654-RP Document 21 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
ANDREW TAKESHI TAKANO,
Plaintiff
v.
SUPER STEAM OF AUSTIN, INC.,
Defendant

§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 1:17-cv-00654-RP

ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to (1) Compel Defendant and Robert Miller to
Answer Written Interrogatories and (2) Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, filed March 13,
2023 (Dkt. 20). By Text Order entered April 20, 2023, the District Court referred the Motion to
this Magistrate Judge for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Andrew Takano brought claims for copyright infringement and removal of copyright
management information against Defendant Super Steam of Austin, Inc. (“Super Steam”). On
December 14, 2017, the District Court entered a final default judgment against Super Steam and
awarded Takano $122,921.15 in statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Dkt. 17. Takano’s
counsel sent Super Steam a letter demanding payment of the money judgment on October 25,
2022, but the judgment remains unsatisfied. Dkt. 51-1 (Culpepper Dec.) ¶¶ 3, 7.
On December 30, 2022, Takano served Super Steam with written interrogatories and requests
for admission to which Super Steam failed to respond. Takano now moves to compel responses to
the interrogatories and for an order deeming his requests for admission admitted and awarding him
attorney’s fees and costs. Super Steam has not appeared in this case and did not file a response.
1

Case 1:17-cv-00654-RP Document 21 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 3

II. Legal Standard
Rule 69(a)(2) provides that a judgment creditor, “[i]n aid of the judgment or execution . . . may
obtain discovery from any person—including the judgment debtor—as provided in these rules or
by the procedure of the state where the court is located.”
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. The discovery must be
relevant to that purpose, however, and may not be used in order to
harass the judgment debtor or any third parties.
13 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 69.04 (2008); see also 12 RICHARD
L. MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 3014 (WRIGHT & MILLER) (3d. ed. May 2, 2023
update) (“The judgment creditor is allowed discovery to find out about assets on which execution
can issue or about assets that have been fraudulently transferred or are otherwise beyond the reach
of execution.”). The scope of post-judgment discovery is “very broad.” F.D.I.C. v. LeGrand,
43 F.3d 163, 172 (5th Cir. 1995).
After a party has attempted in good faith to obtain discovery without court action, that party
may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1). “The Court
must balance the need for discovery by the requesting party and the relevance of the discovery to
the case against the harm, prejudice, or burden to the other party.” Cmedia, LLC v. LifeKey
Healthcare, LLC, 216 F.R.D. 387, 389 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (quoting Truswal Sys. Corp. v. HydroAir Eng’g, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
III. Analysis
Takano served the interrogatories and requests for admission by sending the discovery requests
via first class mail to the last known addresses of Robert Miller. Takano’s counsel avers that Miller
is believed to be an officer of Super Steam because Super Steam’s website domain name was
2

Case 1:17-cv-00654-RP Document 21 Filed 07/13/23 Page 3 of 3

registered to Miller and public records show that Miller registered several fictious business names,
including “Austin Supersteam,” “Austin Super Steam Carpet,” and “Austin Super Steam Carpeting
Cleaning,” and is associated with one of Super Steam’s addresses. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8-9.
The Court finds that Takano has presented competent evidence that Miller is an officer of
Super Steam and the discovery requests were properly served on him. The interrogatories fall
within the permissible scope of post-judgment discovery as they seek to identify assets from which
the judgment can be satisfied. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Takano’s motion compel and
ORDERS Super Steam to respond to the interrogatories on or before August 14, 2023.
The Court further finds that Takano’s requests for admission should be deemed admitted.
Under Rule 36(a)(3), “[a] matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to
whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed
to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.” Because Super Steam failed to respond within
30 days of being served, the Court GRANTS Takano’s motion to deem the requests for admission
admitted.
Takano also requests that the Court award attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in obtaining
this order under Rule 37(a)(5). The Court finds that Takano attempted in good faith to confer with
Super Steam to obtain responses to the discovery requests and that Super Steam’s failure to
respond was not substantially justified. As the Court finds no other reason that an award of
expenses would be unjust, the Court ORDERS that Super Steam shall bear the reasonable
expenses incurred in bringing this motion. Takano is directed to submit a supplemental declaration
detailing his fees and costs on or before August 14, 2023.
SIGNED on July 13, 2023.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3