Zhu v. Li

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JIAJIE ZHU, Case No. 19-cv-02534-JSW (TSH)

8 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY ORDER 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 247, 250 10 JING LI, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 The Court held a hearing on August 4, 2023 concerning the discovery letter briefs at ECF 14 Nos. 247 and 250 in which Plaintiffs and Judgment Creditors move to compel on certain 15 interrogatories (“rogs”) and requests for production (“RFPs”) they propounded as part of their 16 judgment debtor discovery. The Court now issues this order. 17 A. Rule 62 Issue 18 Defendants and Judgment Debtors argue that judgment debtor discovery is premature 19 because the Amended Judgment was issued on August 16, 2023 (ECF No. 253), and Federal Rule 20 of Civil Procedure 62(a) states that “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 62(c) and (d), execution on a 21 judgment and proceedings to enforce it are stayed for 30 days after its entry, unless the court 22 orders otherwise.” However, the Court disagrees. Judgment debtor discovery is neither the 23 execution of a judgment nor a proceeding to enforce it. Rather, it is a process to obtain 24 information or documents that may be useful when it comes time for the judgment creditor to 25 execute or enforce the judgment. In the words of Rule 69(a)(2), judgment debtor discovery is 26 “[i]n aid of the judgment or execution” (emphasis added); it is not the execution or enforcement 27 itself. By contrast, “[a] money judgment” – which is what the Plaintiffs have here – “is enforced 1 Accordingly, a litigant “may obtain discovery pursuant to Rule 69(a)(2) once judgment has been 2 entered,” Parallel Iron LLC v. NetApp, Inc., 84 F. Supp. 3d 352, 362 (D. Del. 2015), which has 3 || happened here. 4 || B. RFPs and Rogs 5 For most of the discovery at issue, subject to the Rule 62 argument just discussed, 6 || Defendants agreed to produce the requested information and documents, and at the hearing they 7 stated they could do so within 30 days. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to 8 || compel as to rogs 1, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21 and 24 and RFPs 1, 2, 5, 8, 14, 21, 25, 27, 28 and 9 ORDERS Defendants to produce the requested information and documents within 30 days. 10 As discussed at the hearing, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint discovery letter 11 brief no later than August 31, 2023 concerning rog 7 and RFPs 22, 6 and 23. Having considered 12 || the issue further since the hearing, the Court also ORDERS the parties to further brief rog 20 in 5 13 that letter brief. The Court DENIES the motion to compel as to rog 23 because it is not 14 sufficiently focused on judgment debtor discovery and is invasive of privacy. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

= 17 Dated: August 28, 2023 A\.|\"4 □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28