Zhu v. Li
- Jeffrey White
- 4:19-cv-02534
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zhu v. Li, Judge Hixson allowed most judgment-debtor discovery, rejected one request, and ordered further briefing on others.
The order affected Plaintiffs and Judgment Creditors seeking judgment-debtor discovery, and Defendants and Judgment Debtors required to produce information and documents or participate in further briefing.
What happened
Jiajie Zhu and other plaintiffs sought information and documents from Jing Li and other defendants after obtaining a money judgment. The defendants argued that discovery was premature because federal rules generally stay judgment enforcement for 30 days after entry.
The court concluded that discovery about a judgment debtor is not itself execution or enforcement of a judgment. It therefore allowed that discovery to begin once judgment had been entered.
Judge Hixson granted the motion to compel for specified interrogatories and document requests, ordering production within 30 days. He denied the motion for one interrogatory because it was not sufficiently focused on judgment-debtor discovery and invaded privacy, and ordered further briefing on other requests.
The detailed version
- Zhu v. Li · No. 4:19-cv-02534
- Jeffrey White
- Aug. 28, 2023
Background
The court held a hearing on discovery letter briefs concerning Plaintiffs' and Judgment Creditors' requests to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production. The requests were part of discovery concerning the judgment debtors.
Rule 62 issue
The Defendants and Judgment Debtors argued that the discovery was premature because an amended judgment had been issued on August 16, 2023. They relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a), which generally stays execution on a judgment and proceedings to enforce it for 30 days after entry unless the court orders otherwise.
The court rejected that argument. It held that judgment-debtor discovery is not execution of a judgment or a proceeding to enforce it. Instead, it is a way to obtain information or documents that may later assist in executing or enforcing the judgment. The court concluded that discovery under Rule 69(a)(2) may be obtained once judgment has been entered.
Discovery rulings
The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel as to interrogatories 1, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 24, and requests for production 1, 2, 5, 8, 14, 21, 25, 27, and 28. It ordered Defendants to produce the requested information and documents within 30 days.
The court ordered the parties to file a joint discovery letter brief by August 31, 2023 concerning interrogatory 7 and requests for production 22, 6, and 23. It also ordered the parties to further brief interrogatory 20 in that letter brief.
The court denied the motion to compel as to interrogatory 23 because it was not sufficiently focused on judgment-debtor discovery and was invasive of privacy. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.