Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02645/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02645-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Janet Dole
Plaintiff
Nouveau Riche Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Janet Dole, 

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,

vs.

Nouveau Riche Corporation,

Defendant/Judgment Debtor.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2645-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order for

Interrogatories, which the Court construes as a Motion for Judgment Debtor’s Examination

via Interrogatories. (Docs. 23-24) Judgment in favor of Plaintiff was entered on April 12,

2011, doc. 21, and there is no evidence that it has been paid. To aid in the enforcement of

the judgment, Plaintiff requests an order directing judgment debtor Nouveau Riche

Corporation to answer the interrogatories (written questions) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 69

and A.R.S. § 12-1631. (Docs. 23, 24) 

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(2).

While less conventional than an oral deposition, because Rule 33(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

authorizes a party to obtain discovery by way of written questions and answers by service

on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts,

Plaintiff, as a judgment creditor, may properly use interrogatories to obtain information from

Case 2:10-cv-02645-LOA Document 30 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

Nouveau Riche Corporation, a judgment debtor. United States v. McWhirter, 376 F.2d 102,

106 (5th Cir. 1967) (“[w]e conclude that Rule 69(a) authorizes the government to propound

written interrogatories to the appellees under Rule 33.”). Thus, a judgment creditor may

propound discovery to a judgment debtor by interrogatories, requests for production and/or

inspection of documents. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, and 34. Odnil Music Ltd. v. Katharsis LLC,

2007 WL 1703763, * 2 (E.D.Cal., Jun 11, 2007). If a judgment debtor fails to respond to

properly crafted discovery, the court may compel responses and impose sanctions if the

debtor lacked substantial justification for failing to respond. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b),

37(a)).

 Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories are defective and provide

wholly inadequate instructions for compliance. (Doc. 24 at 2-5) First, Plaintiff’s proposed

interrogatories, including all discrete subparts, substantially exceed the 25 interrogatory limit

set forth in Rule 33(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff has also inappropriately combined a request

for the production of documents authorized by Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.P., see no. 13, with

written interrogatories. They are separate discovery methods and should have separate

instructions for each. Moreover, no instructions are provided how Nouveau Riche

Corporation may file its answers under seal, consistent with the District Court’s Local Rules,

to protect the confidentiality of the proprietary information requested by Plaintiff. The form

of the interrogatories is also deficient because each interrogatory does not allow any space,

much less adequate space, to answer each interrogatory immediately after the interrogatory

itself. Finally, Plaintiff provides no information on how she intends to serve the requested

discovery on Nouveau Riche Corporation which has not appeared in the District Court.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Debtor’s Examination

via Interrogatories, docs. 23-24, is DENIED without prejudice. 

Dated this 16th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02645-LOA Document 30 Filed 05/17/11 Page 2 of 2