1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MARINO GILDEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PLATINUM HOLDINGS GROUP,

LLC,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-343

Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT 

DISCOVERY (Doc. 17)

This civil action is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion to compel postjudgment discovery. (Doc. 17). 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

By order dated February 13, 2019, the Court awarded Plaintiff a default judgment

in the amount of $7,331, representing $500 in statutory damages under the FDCPA; $600 

in statutory damages under the OSCPA; $510 in expenses and costs; and $5,721 in 

attorneys’ fees. The Clerk then entered a judgment. 

According to Plaintiff, Defendant has paid $6,000.00 on the judgment. (Doc. 16-

1). Defendant, per Plaintiff, said it would file for bankruptcy. (Id.). Plaintiff served 

discovery requests on Defendant. Defendant has not responded. (Id.). Plaintiff now asks 

this Court to compel Defendant to respond to post-judgment discovery under Rule 

69(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant has not responded to the 

Case: 1:18-cv-00343-TSB Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/10/22 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 141
2

motion, nor has Defendant’s bankruptcy counsel responded to Plaintiff’s inquiries. (See

Doc. 16-1).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule 69(a)(2) provides that, “[i]n aid of the judgment or execution, the

judgment creditor . . . may obtain discovery from any person—including the judgment

debtor—as provided in [the Federal Rules] . . . .” See also United States v. Conces, 507

F.3d 1028, 1040 (6th Cir. 2007).

Under the Federal Rules, a party must respond to a discovery request within 30-

days after its date of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2). If a party fails to

respond to an appropriate discovery request, the Court may issue an Order compelling a

fulsome response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3); see, e.g., United States v. Thomas, No.

4:04-CV-49, 2017 WL 571506, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 13, 2017).

A district court enjoys broad discretion in managing discovery, and, as a result, a

district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to compel is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. See Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993).

III. ANALYSIS

Here, there is no question that Plaintiff served Defendant with its post-judgement

discovery requests on April 22, 2019. (Doc. 16-2 at PageID# 134). Nor is there any 

question that Defendant failed to respond to these post-judgment discovery requests 

within 30 days as required. (Doc. 16-1 at ¶6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). Accordingly, the 

Court has the discretion to issue an Order, compelling the Defendant to provide 

Case: 1:18-cv-00343-TSB Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/10/22 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 142
3

responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). On review, the Court concludes that such an 

exercise of discretion is appropriate for at least two reasons.

First, Plaintiff’s requests, which seek information regarding the existence and 

whereabouts of Defendant’s assets, constitute exactly the type of discovery requests 

permissible under Federal Rule 69(a)(2). (Doc. 12-2 at 2–4); see, e.g., Aetna

Grp. USA, Inc. v. AIDCO Int’l, Inc., No. 1:11-MC-23, 2011 WL 2295137, at *2 (S.D.

Ohio June 8, 2011) (stating that it is appropriate for the judgment creditor to “obtain

information [regarding] the existence or transfer of the judgment debtor’s assets” in the

context of post-judgment discovery requests (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Second, as Defendant has failed to object to Plaintiff’s requests, Defendant

has waived its right to dispute the propriety of the discovery sought. (Doc. 16-1 at ¶6);

see, e.g., Badri v. Huron Hosp., No. 1:08-CV-1913, 2009 WL 10689495, at *2 (N.D.

Ohio Oct. 27, 2009) (stating that “a party which fails to object to a discovery request

waives any objections it might otherwise might have made” (citing Richmark Corp. v.

Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992))).

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 16) 

should be and is hereby GRANTED. Thus, Defendant SHALL respond to the

post-judgment discovery requests (Doc. 16-2) within 30 days of the date of this Order.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to serve a copy of this Order on Defendant

via certified mail.

Case: 1:18-cv-00343-TSB Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/10/22 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 143
4 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

3/10/2022 s/Timothy S. Black

Case: 1:18-cv-00343-TSB Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/10/22 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 144