United States District Court, E.D. Washington
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND APPLICATION FOR CHARGING
T. RODGERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE COURT are Plaintiff's motions to compel
discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(2) and Wash. Rev.
Code § 6.32.015, ECF No. 2 & 3, and an application
for a charging order, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff is represented by
Charles R. Steinberg.
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida entered default against Defendant on May 12, 2015,
based on Defendants' failure to comply with Court orders.
ECF No. 1. On October 5, 2015, the Southern District of
Florida entered judgment against Defendants in the amount of
$214, 172.84, plus post-judgment interest. Id. That
judgment purportedly remains unsatisfied. ECF No. 2-4. The
Southern District of Florida judgment was registered in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington on May 22, 2017. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff now seeks to
compel discovery and requests the issuance of a charging
order to determine whether Defendants have an interest in
property within the Eastern District of Washington to apply
toward the satisfaction of the Southern District of Florida
judgment. ECF No. 2-4.
Motions to Compel
October 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel
discovery to aid in the collection of the unsatisfied
judgment. ECF No. 2-3.
Court may require judgment debtors to answer written
interrogatories propounded upon them under Fed.R.Civ.P. 69.
Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.015. The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provide that if a party fails to timely answer a
submitted interrogatory, the party seeking discovery may move
the Court for an order compelling an answer to the
interrogatory request. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3). “The
motion must include a certification that the movant has in
good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person
or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort
to obtain it without court action.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
motions to compel answers to “written
interrogatories” fail to describe any attempts by
Plaintiff to obtain answers to interrogatory requests from
each named defendant prior to seeking the intervention of
this Court. The motions also fail to identify any specific
interrogatory question that a named defendant refused to
answer and the defendant's specific response to the
interrogatory question, if any. Without more information, the
Court is not able to grant Plaintiff's motions to compel
Application for Charging Order
requests the issuance of a charging order against the
nonexempt interest of Defendant Fisher in House of WA
Holdings, LLC. ECF No. 4.
procedure for reaching a judgment debtor's interest in a
partnership or limited liability company is a charging order.
While it appears Plaintiff seeks to procure Defendant
Fisher's interest in a limited liability company
registered in Wenatchee, Washington, Plaintiff does not state
the authority for the issuance of a charging order in this
or any facts supporting Plaintiffs belief that Defendant
Fisher has an ownership interest in the cited limited
liability company. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel
the production of documents,  Plaintiff has again failed to
specifically identify any prior attempts to obtain this
discovery or Defendants' responses to any such discovery
attempts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), (a)(3)(iv).
on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Plaintiff s motions to compel discovery, ECF No. 2
& 3, are DENIED without
Plaintiffs Application for Charging Order, ECF No.
4, is DENIED without prejudice.
IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is
directed to enter this ...