Seiler Tucker Inc. v. Genie Investments

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SEILER TUCKER INC. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NUMBER: 23-7288

GENIE INVESTMENTS SECTION: “I”(5)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is the Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions and Other Relief (rec. doc. 49) filed by Plaintiff, the Judgment Creditor in this lawsuit. Also before the Court is Defendant David Hughes’s Consolidated Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order 1 and Sanctions and Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition. (Rec. doc. 59). Non-Party John Micheal Cohan’s Motion to Appear by Video Conference (rec. doc. 60) is also before the Court, as is the Limited Objection and Motion to Quash (rec. doc. 61) filed by Cohan. Having reviewed all of the pleadings, the Court rules as follows. Plaintiff Seiler Tucker Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Judgment Creditor”) filed this lawsuit alleging a breach of contract by Defendant Genie Investments II, L.L.C. (“Defendant” or “Judgment Debtor”). (Rec. doc. 9). To date, Defendant has never made an appearance. Plaintiff ultimately filed a motion for a default judgment. (Rec. doc. 27). The District Judge granted the motion and entered judgment against Defendant on March 25, 2025 (rec. docs. 30, 32) in the amount of $375,000.00. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) provides that a judgment creditor such as Plaintiff may obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, in aid of the judgment or execution thereof. To this end, Plaintiff moved for a judgment debtor exam, praying that Defendant, through its representatives, be ordered to appear and testify in court. (Rec. doc. 40). The undersigned set a date for Defendant’s judgment debtor examination. (Rec. doc. 43). Counsel for Plaintiff appeared, but no representative of Defendant appeared at the hearing. (Rec. doc. 47). The undersigned instructed Plaintiff’s

counsel “Itdo. file any motion she deems appropriate for the relief that Judgment Creditor seeks.” ( ). Plaintiff has thus filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. (Rec. doc. 49). The motion states that, during the underlying litigation, Plaintiff learned that Defendant is owned in eqIdu.al parts by John Michael Cohan and David Hughes, who are not defendants in this case. ( at ¶ 7). The motioIdn. asks that Cohan and Hughes be ordered to appear for a judgment debtor examination. ( at ¶ 9). Plaintiff also seeks its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred fIodr. appearing at the judgment debtor examination and for bringing the instant

motion. ( at ¶ 11). The undersigned scheduled the motion to compel and for sanctions for oral hearing on August 14, 2025. (Rec. doc. 51). The Court now finds oral argument unnecessary. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the Court may treat a party's failure to obey an order to provide or permit discovery as contempt of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii). Rule 37 identifies several potential sanctions, including payment of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). Additionally,

the undersigned has authority to enter a non-dispositive order granting attoSreneeys’ fees or other nosne-ed aislspoo sMiteirvrei tsta vn. cItnito'nl Bs hudn.d oefr B Foeildeerrmaal kReurlse of Civil Procedure 37(e). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); , 649 F.2d 1013, 1016-17 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (finding that a magistrate judge has authority to enter a non-dispositive order granting attorneys’ fees as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37). A party is in contempt when it violates a “definite and specific order of the court

requiring it to performG oibrs orenf rBariann fdrso,m In pc.e vr.f oArrmmiandgi lalo p Daristticriubluarti oanct Eonrt earcptsr iwseist,h I nkcn.owledge of the court's order.” see Cordo, vNao v. . 1L9a-. 3St5a8t,e 2 U0n2i3v. WAgLr 2ic3. 5&2 M83ec0h, .a Ct o*l2l. (BEd.D. o. fT Seuxp. eMrvairs.o 3r,s 2023) (citations omitted); , No. 19-1027, 2024 WL 263941, at *2 (W.D. La. Jan. 24, 2024). A party seeking an order of civil contempt must establish three elements: (1) that a court order was in effect; (2) that the order rPeiqgugilrye Wd icgegrltya iCnla croknsvdiullcet, bInyc .t hve. Mrerssp. oBnadiredn'st ; Baankde r(i3e)s that the respondent failed to comply. , 177 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 1Id9.99). The claimant must prove

each of these elements by clear and convincing evidence. at 382. However, judicial contempGt.K s.h vo. uDld.M n.ot be used unless a specific aspect of the Court's order has been clearly violated. , No. 21-2242, 2023 WL 2316213, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 25, 2023). A party may also avoid contempt if they pCroordduovcae credible evidence showing tUhnaitt ecdo Smtaptleiasn vc. eS owrritehll sthe court's order is impossible. , No. 19-1027 at *2 (citing , 877 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1989)). This Court’s Orders requiring Judgment Debtor – co-owned by John Michael Cohan and David Hughes – to appear and sit for a judgment debtor examination were clearly in

effect. (Rec. docs. 43, 45). And Judgment Debtor through its representatives Cohan and Hughes failed to comply with that Order. It has offered no substantial justification for failing to appear and no evidence that compliance is impossible. Accordingly, the Court finds Judgment Debtor Genie Investments II, L.L.C. in contempt of this Court’s Orders and awards to Judgment Creditor Seiler Tucker Inc. the fees and costs incurred in drafting the first motion for a judgment debtor examination, its fees and costs incurred in appearing for the judgment debtor examination, and its fees and costs incurred in drafting the motion

currentlIyT b IeSf oOrRe DthEeR CEoDurt. Accordingly, GRANT EthDa t Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions and Other Relief (rec. doc. 49) is as outlined above, and the Court awards fees and costs to the JudgmeInTt ICSr eFdUitRoTr HinE tRh eO aRmDoEuRnEt Dof $1,500.00. that John Michael Cohan and David Hughes shall each appear and sit for a judgment debtor examination via ZOOM or bsoumt ien o nthoe re vviedneto l mateedri at haat na mthuirtutya l(l3y-0a)g dreaeyasb flreo tmim teh ea ndda tdea otef tdheitse rOmrdineerd by the parties IT IS FURTHER ORDERED .

REJECTED AND DENIEDthat the Limited Objection and Motion to Quash (rec. doc. 61I)T is I S FURTHER ORDERED . that Defendant David Hughes’s Consolidated Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Sanctions and Response to Plaintiff’s Opposition (rec. doc. 59), Non-Party John Michael Cohan’s Motion to Appear by Video Conference (rec. doc. 60), the Emergency Motion for Remote Access to August 14, 2025 Hearing (rec. doc. 63), the second Emergency Motion for Remote Access to August 14, 2025 Hearing (rec. doc. 64), and the Emergency Motion for Remote AppearaDnIcSeM oISr,S EinD tAhSe

AMlOteOrnTative, for Continuance with Affidavit in Support (rec. doc. 65) are .I T IS FURTHER ORDERED CANCELLED that the oral hearing set on August 14, 2025 is . FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN FURTHER AND MORE SEVERE SANCTIONS. August 11th New Orleans, Louisiana, this day of , 2025.

MICHAEL B. NORTH UNIT ED ST ATES M AGIST RATE JUDGE