– 1 –

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

)

In re: ) Case No.: 17-11625-KHK

 )

THOMAS GIBSON JEWELL )

) Chapter 11 

Debtor )

)

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER DIRECTING RULE 2004 EXAMINATION AND 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COMES NOW, Thomas Gibson Jewell (the “Debtor”), by counsel, pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 and Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1, and moves this Court 

to enter an order directing a Rule 2004 Examination of and compelling the Production of 

Documents by Jeffrey A. Bolyard (the “Mr. Bolyard”), identified in Exhibit A, at the Law Office 

of Frank Bredimus, 16960 Ivandale Road, Hamilton, Virginia 20158, three (3) days before the 

examination. In support thereof, the Debtor states the following: 

1. The Debtor initiated this bankruptcy case by filing his Voluntary Petition (the “Petition”) 

under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on May 12, 2017 as case number 17-

11625-KHK. 

2. The Debtor is the attorney-in-fact for his mother, Dorothy M. Jewell (“Dorothy Jewell”), 

pursuant to a Power of Attorney dated October 8, 2002, which was executed by Dorothy Jewell. 

Additionally, the Debtor is the sole Trustee of the Dorothy M. Jewell Trust dated October 8, 

2002 pursuant to the First Amendment to Dorothy M. Jewell Trust dated January 27, 2017.

3. Mr. Bolyard, former accountant for Dorothy Jewell, claims that he is now Dorothy 

Jewell’s attorney-in-fact pursuant to a new durable power of attorney allegedly executed by 

Dorothy Jewell on June 26, 2017. Moreover, Mr. Bolyard claims that he is now the trustee of the 

Case 17-11625-KHK Doc 49 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/01/17 20:50:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 5
– 2 –

Dorothy M. Jewell Trust dated October 8, 2002 (the “Dorothy Jewell Trust”), and that he

amended the Dorothy Jewell Trust. In order to ensure that he meets his fiduciary duties to his 

mother, Dorothy Jewell, and in order to ensure that he does not incur damages as a result of his 

failure to meet his fiduciary duties to Dorothy Jewell, the Debtor needs to determine whether or 

not Mr. Bolyard’s claims are true, as well as any and all facts concerning Mr. Bolyard’s claims. 

Moreover, the Debtor needs to investigate whether Mr. Bolyard has control of any of Dorothy 

Jewell’s assets in his alleged capacity as the trustee of the Dorothy Jewell Trust or in his alleged 

capacity as Dorothy Jewell’s attorney-in-fact. The requested documents are necessary to 

determine these issues.

4. “On motion of any party in interest, the court may order the examination of any entity.” 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a). Additionally, the court may compel the production of documents. Fed. 

R. Bank. P. 2004(c). 

5. “The examination of any entity under this rule or of the debtor, under § 343 of the Code 

may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the 

debtor.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b).

6. “The broad scope of questioning that applies at a meeting of creditors also applies at a 

Rule 2004 examination. Any question is allowable if (1) it relates to the acts, conduct, property, 

liabilities, or financial condition of the debtor, or (2) it relates to any matter that may affect the 

administration of the bankruptcy estate or the debtor’s right to a discharge.” In re Russell, 392 

B.R. 315, 359 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2008)

7. Rule 2004 (and its predecessor rules) gives parties in interest an opportunity to examine 

individuals having knowledge of the financial affairs of the debtor in order to preserve the rights 

of creditors. In re GHR, 41 B.R. at 660. 

Case 17-11625-KHK Doc 49 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/01/17 20:50:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 5
– 3 –

8. Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is the fundamental discovery devise in bankruptcy cases. See In re 

Muy Bueno Corp., 257 B.R., 843, 851 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2001). Bankruptcy Rule 2004(a) 

provides: “On motion of any party-in-interest, the Court may order the examination of any 

entity.” As the Rule makes no mention of notice, the Court may order Rule 2004 examination 

immediately upon request of a party-in-interest. See, e.g., In re Hickman, 151 B.R. 125, 128 

(Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993) (“[t]he motion may be heard ex parte...”). 

9. Courts routinely reinforce the broad scope of Rule 2004 examinations. See, e.g.,

In Re Duratech Indus., Inc., 241 B.R. 283, 289 Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1999) ("The scope of a Rule

2004 examination is exceptionally broad . . . ."); In Re Bazemore, 216 B.R. 1020, 1023 (Bankr.

S.D. Ga. 1998) ("FRBP 2004 is broadly read."); In Re Szadkowski, 198 B.R. 140, 141 (Bankr. D.

Md. 1996) ("A Rule 2004 examination allows a broad 'fishing expedition' into an entity's affairs

for the purpose of obtaining information relevant to the administration of the bankruptcy

estate."); In Re Dinubilo, 177 B.R. 932, 939 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1993) ("The range of discoverable 

subject matter in a Rule 2004 examination is 'unfettered and broad'."); In re Lang, 107 B.R. 130, 

132 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1989) ("The Rule contemplates a broad and far-reaching inquiry into the

debtor's affairs."); Matter of Wilcher, 56 B.R. 428, 433 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985) ("The general rule 

is that the scope of a Rule 2004 examination is very broad and great latitude of inquiry is 

ordinarily permitted."); In Re Johns-Manville Corp., 42 B.R. 362, 364 (S.D. N.Y. 1984) (in the

context of a Rule 2004 examination, "the inquiry may `cut a broad swath through the debtor's

affairs, those associated with him, and those who might have had business dealings with him'.").

A New York bankruptcy court cogently concluded:

The purpose of a Rule 2004 examination is to assist a party in interest in

determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets,

examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing has occurred.

(citation omitted) The scope of Rule 2004 examination is very broad, broader

Case 17-11625-KHK Doc 49 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/01/17 20:50:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 5
– 4 –

even than discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In re Recoton Corp., 307 B.R. 751, 755 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004)

10. The Debtor seeks to conduct a Rule 2004 examination of Mr. Bolyard on the following 

subject matters: (the “Examination Topics”):

• Mr. Bolyard’s assertion that he is now Dorothy Jewell’s attorney-in-fact;

• Mr. Bolyard’s possession and/or handling of Dorothy Jewell’s assets;

• Matters arising from review of the documents produced by the mr.

• Mr. Bolyard’s assertion that he is now trustee of the Dorothy Jewell Trust, and 

that he amended the Dorothy Jewell Trusts.

• Mr. Bolyard’s communications with third parties regarding Dorothy Jewell and

the Dorothy Jewell Trust.

11. The Debtor is entitled to the information and documentation he requested and, therefore, 

an order compelling attendance and compliance should be issued. Therefore, the Debtor requests 

the Court issue an Order to require the Debtor to appear at the Law Office of Frank Bredimus on 

for Rule 2004 examination.

12. Rule 2004(c) contemplates the production of documents in conjunction with a Rule 2004 

examination. The Debtor seeks production by Mr. Bolyard within three (3) business days prior to 

the Rule 2004 examination the documents listed on Exhibit A.

WHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully moves this Court to enter an Order requiring Mr. 

Bolyard to appear and testify under oath at a Rule 2004 examination in the Law Office of Frank 

Bredimus, and to produce all documents set forth in Exhibit A at the Law Office of Frank 

Bredimus three (3) days prior to the examination date, and for such other and further relief as this 

Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: September 1, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS GIBSON JEWELL

By Counsel

 /s/ Frank Bredimus

Frank Bredimus

Case 17-11625-KHK Doc 49 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/01/17 20:50:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 5
– 5 –

Counsel for the Debtor

The Law Office of Frank Bredimus

16960 Ivandale Road

Hamilton, VA 20158

VSB # 28793

Tel: 571-344-2278

Fax: 540-338-5421

Email: fbredimus@aol.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have on this 1

st day of September, 2017, caused a true and accurate 

copy of this Motion to be served electronically through the electronic case filing system to all 

persons entering their appearance and requesting notice in this case, and on the 2nd day of 

September, 2017, by First-Class mail, postage prepaid, to the parties set forth below:

Jeffrey A. Bolyard

6 Royal Street SW

Suite 430

Leesburg, VA 20175

(via Certified)

Jack Frankel

Office of the U.S. Trustee

115 South Union Street

Suite 210

Alexandria, VA 22314

 /s/ Frank Bredimus

Frank Bredimus

Case 17-11625-KHK Doc 49 Filed 09/01/17 Entered 09/01/17 20:50:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 5