Mente Group LLC v. Arnell Enterprises, Inc

Opinion

MENTE GROUP LLC, Case No. 20-cv-07459-VKD

Plaintiff, ORDER RE OCTOBER 20, 2023 v. DISPUTE RE POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 66 Defendant.

Plaintiff and counter-defendant Mente Group LLC (“Mente”) moves for an order requiring defendant and counter-claimant Arnell Enterprises, Inc. (“Arnell”) to provide answers to Mente’s post-judgment interrogatories. Dkt. No. 66. The Court finds this dispute suitable for decision without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). On January 3, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment for Mente on its breach of contract claim against Arnell. Dkt. No. 46. The Court dismissed the remaining claims as moot on February 11, 2022 and entered judgment in favor of Mente. Dkt. Nos. 50, 51. On September 22, 2022, the Court granted Mente’s motion for an award of $233,627.22 in attorneys’ fees and $6,127.10 in costs. Dkt. No. 59. Arnell presently owes Mente a total of $403,902.28, exclusive of interest. See Dkt. No. 66 at 1. Arnell has not paid any portion of that amount. Id. On June 13, 2023, Mente served interrogatories on Arnell seeking information about transfers of funds out of Arnell’s bank account between January 4, 2021 and January 15, 2023. Id. at 2 & Ex. A. Mente explains that it requires this information because a “transaction summary” produced by Arnell indicates that Arnell may have intentionally depleted its bank account in an Mente’s interrogatories. Id. Arnell’s counsel advises that he “has been unable [to] obtain the requested information from Arnell . . . and understand[s] that the vast majority of the information is unavailable.” Id. at 3. Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a judgment creditor “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” in aid of collecting on a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). Post-judgment discovery may be used to identify assets that can be used to satisfy a judgment or to discover concealed or fraudulently transferred assets. See Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal de Cabo San Lucas, No. C 06-3219 JW RS, 2009 WL 5114077, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009). Arnell does not dispute that Mente’s interrogatories seek information within the scope of proper post-judgment discovery. See Dkt. No. 66 at 3. Arnell offers no excuse for failing to timely respond to the interrogatories. See id. Moreover, it is not plausible that the “vast majority” of the requested information does not exist within Arnell’s possession, custody or control. The interrogatories all concern substantial transfers (equal to or exceeding $5,000), dating back less than three years, out of a single bank account. See id., Ex. A. In any event, even if Arnell does not have some of the requested information, it had and has an obligation to provide the information it does have. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(B), (3). Arnell has had over four months to answer Mente’s interrogatories. Arnell’s counsel protests that he is “engaged in trial in San Francisco until October 26, 2023” and asks for more time to respond. Dkt. No. 66 at 3. However, Arnell does not explain how its counsel’s current trial obligation has anything to do with its failure to answer these interrogatories by July 13, 2023—the date the answers were due—or at any time in the following months. See id. Accordingly, the Court orders Arnell to answer, fully and completely, Mente’s post- judgment interrogatories by October 30, 2023. Arnell has waived any objections it might otherwise have to the interrogatories because it failed to timely assert them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). The judgment debtor examine shall proceed as scheduled on October 25, 2023 unless 2 Dated: October 23, 2023 3 . 28 Vaiaguia®, Qe □□□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28