Opinion
Case No: 5:11-CV-395-Oc-10PRL
11-08-2012
JEAN M. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. FRENCH & FRENCH, LTD and RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD. Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's, French & French, Ltd., Responses to Discovery in Aid of Execution (Doc. 11) and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's, Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd., Responses to Discovery in Aid of Execution. (Doc.12).
On November 3, 2011, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Jean M. Thomas and against Defendants, French & French, Ltd. and Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd., jointly and severally, in the amount of $11,000.00, plus interest from the date of judgment forward at the rate provided by law. (Doc. 9). On April 2, 2012, Plaintiff served French & French, Ltd. and Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd., via U.S. mail, with discovery in aid of execution - i.e., interrogatories and requests to produce. After Defendants failed to respond to the discovery requests, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Defendants have not responded to the instant motions, and their time for doing so has long since passed.
Copies of these discovery requests are attached as exhibits to the instant motions.
Pursuant to Rule 69(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment creditor may obtain discovery from the judgment debtor as provided by the Federal Rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located. As such, the Plaintiff has the option of using the rules of discovery provided in the Federal Rules or the option of utilizing the procedures for discovery in aid of execution provided under Florida Law. Here, Plaintiff has promulgated interrogatories and requests for production - discovery procedures which are permitted under both federal and Florida law.
Plaintiff does not clearly state whether she is electing to use the rules of discovery provided in the Federal Rules or whether she is using the procedures for discovery in aid of execution provided under Florida Law.
--------
The scope of discovery under Rule 69(a) and Florida law is broad, permitting a judgment creditor to obtain discovery not only of the debtors current assets, but also information relating to past financial transactions.3 See e.g., STG Secure Trading Group, Inc. v. Solaris Opportunity Fund, LP, No. 06-81018-CIV, 2007 WL 3131335, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2007); British Intern. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A., 200 F.R.D. 586, 589 (W.D. Tex. 2000.) Indeed, the purpose of post-judgment discovery is to learn information relevant to the existence or transfer of the judgment debtor's assets. British Intern. Ins. Co., Ltd., 200 F.R.D. at 589. Here, Plaintiff's discovery requests appear to be directed toward identifying and locating assets for the purpose of executing her judgment.
Accordingly, and in the absence of any objection from Defendants, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's, French & French, Ltd., Responses to Discovery in Aid of Execution (Doc. 11) and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's, Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd., Responses to Discovery in Aid of Execution. (Doc.12) are due to be GRANTED. On or before November 29, 2012, French & French, Ltd. and Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd. shall serve responses to Plaintiff's Post-Judgment Discovery Requests which were served on April 2, 2012. Responses should be directed to the attention of Plaintiff's counsel:
Donald A. Yarbrough
Law Office of Donald A. Yarbrough
P.O. Box 11842
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33339
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on November 8, 2012.
_______________
PHILIP R. LAMMENS
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record FRENCH & FRENCH, LTD FRENCH & FRENCH, LTD RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD.
c/o CT Corporation System
RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD