JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James

Background

The court had previously awarded JW Gaming judgment on a breach-of-contract claim and entered a judgment of approximately $8.5 million. The abstract of judgment and writ of execution stated the judgment amount as $8,501,312.06. After the U.S. Marshal levied six WestAmerica Bank accounts of the Pinoleville Pomo Nation containing approximately $190,000, the Tribe filed a claim of exemption. The court stated that an evidentiary hearing would address whether those accounts contained exempt funds and, if so, to what extent.

To aid collection of the judgment, JW Gaming served notice of its intent to subpoena WestAmerica Bank. The subpoena sought records from January 1, 2016, through the response date for seven accounts belonging to the Tribe and one account belonging to the Pinoleville Business Board. The bank produced the records before the Tribe filed its motion.

Arguments and analysis

The Tribe moved to quash or modify the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and requested attorneys’ fees. Its arguments included that the copy attached to the notice lacked counsel’s signature and a date; that notice was not served on non-debtors; that the subpoena sought records involving entities not named in the writ of execution; that the requests were overbroad and confidential; and that the five-year-plus period was excessive.

The court rejected the notice argument. The notice itself was signed and dated and identified when the subpoena would be served. The bank sent the Tribe a signed and dated copy the day after service, and the Tribe had until the production date to object. The court found that the Tribe had notice and an opportunity to object and had not shown prejudice from the missing signature and date on the copy attached to the notice.

The court also concluded that the Tribe could not assert the rights of other parties without establishing the required personal stake or a recognized exception. It further held that the Tribe misunderstood the difference between using a subpoena to discover assets and using a writ of execution to levy assets. Under Rule 69(a)(2), a judgment creditor may obtain discovery from any person in aid of a judgment or execution. The court described post-judgment discovery as broad enough to investigate assets that may be hidden, concealed, or fraudulently transferred, rather than being limited to the judgment debtor’s current tangible assets.

The court found no authority limiting post-judgment discovery to the date the judgment was entered. It therefore rejected the Tribe’s challenge to the subpoena’s time period and scope.

Disposition

The court DENIED the Tribe’s motion to quash or modify JW Gaming’s subpoena. It DENIED AS MOOT the Tribe’s request for attorneys’ fees because the Tribe was unsuccessful in obtaining the requested relief. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman.