United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY RELATED TO DEFENDANTS' FINANCES
(DOC. 162)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs
Darrell Archer and Keitha Darquea seek to compel Jill Gipson,
J.E. Burke Construction, and Joseph Burke to respond to
post-judgment discovery requests to obtain financial
information that Plaintiffs contend is “necessary
… to assist them in the collection of their
judgment.” (Doc. 162) For the reasons set forth below,
the motion is DENIED.
I.
Relevant Background
Plaintiffs,
proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing on
February 23, 2012. (Doc. 1) Plaintiffs proceeded pro
se until July 2, 2015, at which time the Court approved
substitutions of attorney for Timothy Kassouni and Angela
Thompson. (Docs. 92-95)
A jury
trial was held in the matter, beginning August 4, 2015. The
jury found in favor of Plaintiffs on their claims that the
defendants violated Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights
by unlawfully seizing their personal property without a
warrant, and that these Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of
their due process rights by failing to provide adequate
notice and opportunity to be heard prior to seizing their
personal property. The jury awarded compensatory damages to
Plaintiffs of $937.36 “plus interest due as of [August
6, 2015]” against Defendant Gipson and $1.00 against
Joseph Burke and/or J.E. Burke Construction, Inc. (Doc. 121)
In addition, the jury awarded punitive damages of $800.00
against Defendant Gipson and $200.00 against J.E. Burke
Construction, Inc. (Doc. 122) Final judgment was entered by
the Court on August 10, 2015. (Doc. 125)
Plaintiffs
filed a motion for attorney fees, which was granted in part
on December 28, 2015, in the amount of $50, 287.83. (Doc.
133) Plaintiffs filed a request for reconsideration related
to the amount of fees awarded on January 25, 2016 (Doc. 134),
as well as a Notice of Appeal of the Court's order on
January 27, 2016. (Doc. 135) The Ninth Circuit dismissed the
appeal for failure to prosecute on September 13, 2016.
On
October 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the motion now pending
before the Court, seeking to compel Defendants to respond to
post-judgment discovery requests, asserting discovery was
necessary to obtain “information to assist [Plaintiffs]
in the collection of their judgment.” (Doc. 162 at 2)
Therefore, Plaintiffs report they served discovery requests
in September 2019 related to “the whereabouts of
Defendants (sic) finances to aid in collection of the
judgment, ” including “information on property
owned by Defendants, … bank information and other
financial information” pursuant to Rule 69 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Cal. Code of Civil Pro.
§ 708.030 . (Id.)
Defendants
filed their opposition on December 2, 2019, reporting a check
was issued and delivered to Plaintiffs in November 2016,
which covered both the judgment and attorneys' fees
ordered by the Court. (Doc. 164) In response, Plaintiffs
acknowledge the check was received, but maintain they
received “no satisfaction of judgment and an uncashable
check.” (Doc. 165 at 2)
II.
Legal Standards
A
judgment creditor may obtain discovery from any person,
including a judgment debtor, as provided in the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure or “by the procedure of the state
where the court is located.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(b).
Rule 33
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to
propound interrogatories, while and Rule 34 authorizes a
party to request to inspect documents. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33, 34. In addition, the California Code of Civil
Procedure provides that a judgment creditor may propound
written interrogatories and inspection demands to a judgment
debtor requesting information to aid in enforcement of the
money judgment. See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§ 708.020(a) (“The judgment creditor may propound
written interrogatories to the judgment debtor . . .
requesting information to aid in enforcement of the money
judgment”); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.030(a)
(“The judgment creditor may demand that any judgment
debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or
someone acting on that party's behalf, to inspect and to
copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or
control of the party on whom the demand is made . . . if the
demand requests information to aid in enforcement of the
money judgment.”).
Under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, upon notice, a party
may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery
after a good faith attempt to confer with a party failing to
make disclosure or discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1).
Likewise, the California Code of Civil Procedure provides
that when a responding party fails to answer an interrogatory
or request for inspection authorized by those statutes,
post-judgment discovery may be enforced in the same manner as
discovery in a civil action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§§ 708.020, 708.030.
III.
Discussion and Analysis
Seeking
post-judgment discovery, Plaintiffs note that they obtained
an execution of judgment on November 9, 2016. (Doc. 162 at 3)
According to Plaintiffs, “On September 5, 2019 all
Defendants were served with a Request for Post Judgment
Discovery Set 1.” (Id.) Plaintiffs report they
did not receive responses to their requests, and the motion
to compel was “a necessary action and good causes
exists to aid Plaintiffs in their attempt to collect their
judgment.” (Id.) ...