Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00535/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00535-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXCELSIOR COLLEGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES M. FRYE; PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS SCHOOL OF

HEALTH SCIENCES; and WEST HAVEN

UNIVERSITY,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.04CV535-WQH(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL POSTJUDGMENT DISCOVERY (DOC. 470)

Plaintiff Excelsior College seeks to compel responses to post judgment interrogatories and

requests for documents that were issued to Defendants Charles Frye, West Haven University and

Professional Development Systems School of Health Sciences. The motion is opposed by Defendant

Frye, a pro se litigant. Defendants West Haven University and Professional Development Systems

School of Health Sciences (jointly referred to hereafter as the “Corporate Defendants”) have not filed an

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. As explained below, the motion is granted with regard to the discovery

propounded on Mr. Frye and denied with respect to the Corporate Defendants.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Frye initiated a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in the Central District of California on

November 22, 2006. Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint in the bankruptcy case requesting a

Case 3:04-cv-00535-WQH-LSP Document 490 Filed 10/02/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 703.140(b), California’s exemption statute was recently found to violate the

Supremacy Clause. In re: Regevig, 2008 WL 2502981 (Bankr. D. Ariz. June 24, 2008). However, this decision

has no bearing on the inquiry as to whether discovery can be conducted of assets that were exempted from the

bankruptcy estate. 

2

determination that debts arising from this case be excepted from Frye’s discharge under 17 U.S.C. §

523(a)(6). On Feb. 15, 2007, Judge Bluebond granted Excelsior College’s motion for relief from stay

for purposes of this Court’s entering final judgment against Frye individually. Thereafter, Judge

Bluebond ruled the judgment entered in this case was nondischargeable on Counts I, II, III, IV, and VI,

totaling $6,564,984.62. Frye’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied and final judgment

was entered on Feb. 13, 2008. On consideration of Frye’s appeal, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

of the Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Bluebond’s decision on August 19, 2008. 

In order to obtain information to assist with executing on the judgment from this case, Plaintiff

propounded written discovery on each of the defendants on March 27, 2008, pursuant to Fed. R, Civ. P.

69(a)(2), which permits a judgment creditor to conduct discovery from the judgment debtor as provided

in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or procedure of the state where the court is located.

Post Judgment Discovery as to Charles Frye:

Requests for Documents and Interrogatories were served on Mr. Frye on March 27, 2008.

Declaration of David Miranda in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Ex. A1 and A4. 

Mr. Frye objects to many of the discovery requests on the grounds he will not provide any

information that would adversely affect his ability to pay past due child or family support to his ex-wife. 

However, the issue as to whether Mr. Frye’s child support obligations are superior to Plaintiff’s

judgment is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s right to conduct discovery regarding Mr. Frye’s assets. 

Mr. Frye further contends that in his bankruptcy action he listed certain assets as exempt,

including the Corporate Defendants. Because Plaintiff did not object to the exemption, Mr. Frye claims

the assets are not available to satisfy any pre-bankruptcy debt and, therefore, discovery relating to these

assets is irrelevant. Although an individual debtor may exempt certain property from inclusion in the

bankruptcy estate, Mr. Frye’s objection is not well based on two accounts. 11 U.S.C. §522; Cal. Code.

of Civ. Proc. § 703.140(b).1

 First, the discovery requests are more broad in scope than the assets that

Mr. Frye claims are exempted. Second, a debtor’s interest in property that is exempted is subject to

Case 3:04-cv-00535-WQH-LSP Document 490 Filed 10/02/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

statutory limits. See e.g. Cal. Code. of Civ. Proc. § 703.140(b)(6) (limiting the value of a debtor’s

aggregate interest in “any implements, professional books, or tools of the trade of the debtor” to $1,750).

The information and documents sought by Plaintiff are directly relevant to judgment collection

efforts. Mr. Frye’s objections, therefore, are overruled. 

Post Judgment Discovery as to the Corporate Defendants:

Ken Simonian, Esq. is counsel of record for the Corporate Defendants, however, the proofs of

service for the discovery requests to these defendants indicate they were served only on Mr. Frye. Dec.

of David Miranda, Ex. A3 and A5. If a party is represented by counsel, “service must be made on the

attorney unless the court orders service on the party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 5(b)(1) emphasis added. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as to the corporate defendants due to improper service.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to Mr. Frye. 

Mr. Frye shall provide full and complete responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for

documents no later than October 17, 2008. The motion is DENIED as to the Corporate Defendants.

DATED: October 2, 2008

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00535-WQH-LSP Document 490 Filed 10/02/08 Page 3 of 3