Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast

Background

Erickson Productions, Inc. and Jim Erickson asked the court to compel Kraig Kast to produce documents in response to post-judgment discovery requests. Post-judgment discovery is information-gathering after a judgment, generally used to identify assets or other information that may help satisfy the judgment.

The underlying case involved copyright infringement. The opinion states that the court entered an amended judgment in Erickson’s favor totaling $564,423.95, including damages, attorney fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. On July 22, 2024, Erickson served Kast with 46 requests for production. Kast objected that the requests were overly broad, costly, burdensome, excessive, time-consuming, and irrelevant, and stated that the documents had previously been provided or obtained through earlier subpoenas and discovery requests.

Legal standard and ruling on Erickson’s motion

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2), a judgment creditor may obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, to aid enforcement of the judgment. The court explained that this discovery is broad but remains subject to limits based on proportionality, harassment, and whether the requested information could reasonably lead to relevant information.

The court found Erickson’s requests proper. The requests sought documents concerning assets, financial accounts, businesses, safe-deposit boxes, securities, real estate, tax filings, debts, transfers of assets or money, and sources of income or revenue. The court concluded that these documents were relevant to identifying assets that could be used to satisfy the judgment.

The court also found that Erickson had provided evidence that Kast controlled accounts involved in the requests. That evidence included bank statements identifying Kast as trustee of the Black Oak Trust, checks listing the trust or Warren C. Rudinger as payor that appeared to bear Kast’s signature, and account statements listing Kast as power of attorney. The court held that Kast’s lack of physical possession or online access did not justify refusing to produce the documents because he had not shown that he could not obtain them.

The court rejected Kast’s arguments that obtaining the documents would cost too much, that Erickson should subpoena banks instead, or that the documents were available publicly. It also rejected Kast’s arguments that the requests were cumulative or duplicative. Finally, the court held that repeating the same boilerplate objections to all 46 requests was improper and did not justify withholding the documents. The court granted Erickson’s motion and ordered Kast to serve the documents by October 17, 2025.

Rulings on Kast’s requests

The court denied Kast’s request for reconsideration of orders concerning stays of discovery, the judgment pending appeal, and an attorney-fee award. The court noted that Kast had not actually filed motions seeking stays of attorney fees or post-judgment discovery, so there was nothing to reconsider as to those matters. Regarding the order denying a stay of the judgment, the court found that Kast did not identify grounds for reconsideration and had not acted diligently in making the request.

The court denied Kast’s request for a temporary restraining order because he did not attempt to show that the requirements for such an order were met. The court also found that the record did not support Kast’s assertion that Erickson’s discovery requests were harassing.

The court denied Kast’s request for sanctions against Erickson’s counsel, finding no evidence that counsel had unreasonably or improperly multiplied the proceedings. The court also denied Kast’s request for discovery about Erickson and its counsel because Kast identified no legal basis for that discovery and presented no new facts or arguments supporting it.