Donoghue v. Astro Aerospace Ltd.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-07991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Donoghue v. Astro Aerospace, Judge Oetken granted post-judgment discovery and fee motions, ordering responses, a deposition, and a fee submission.
Deborah Donoghue and Mark Rubenstein obtained post-judgment discovery from Bruce Bent and nominal defendant Astro Aerospace Ltd. The defendants were ordered to provide documents and produce Bruce Bent for a deposition, and the plaintiffs were allowed to submit a request for fees and costs related to the motion.
What happened
In Donoghue v. Astro Aerospace Ltd., Deborah Donoghue and Mark Rubenstein sought information from Astro Aerospace Ltd. and Bruce Bent to enforce a prior judgment awarding their counsel $15,725 in fees and costs. The defendants did not oppose the motion.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs could use subpoenas for documents and a deposition to obtain information supporting enforcement of the judgment. It also granted the plaintiffs’ request for reasonable fees and expenses related to bringing the motion, although the amount still had to be submitted for the court’s review.
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the defendants to respond to the document subpoena by January 1, 2023, and ordered Bruce Bent to appear for a deposition by January 15, 2023. The plaintiffs had to submit a detailed fee request by January 30, 2023.
The detailed version
- Donoghue v. Astro Aerospace Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-07991
- James Oetken
- Nov. 21, 2022
Background
On April 28, 2022, the court entered a final judgment awarding the plaintiffs’ counsel $15,725 in fees and costs. The judgment required Bruce Bent and nominal defendant Astro Aerospace Ltd. to pay that amount jointly and separately. The Clerk later issued a writ of execution, a court process used to enforce a judgment, for the same amount.
The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) to compel responses to outstanding post-judgment document and deposition subpoenas. They also moved under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) for the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in bringing the motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that they had attempted to meet and confer before filing. The defendants did not respond within the time allowed by the local rules, so the motion was unopposed.
Court’s reasoning
Rule 69(a)(2) allows a judgment creditor—the party entitled to enforce a judgment—to obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, to aid enforcement of the judgment or execution. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ document and deposition subpoenas sought information related to the prior judgment and writ of execution and were therefore appropriate.
Rule 37(a)(5)(A) generally requires the party whose conduct required a motion to compel to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees, after that party has had an opportunity to be heard. The court found that the plaintiffs clearly requested fees and expenses in their motion and that the defendants had an opportunity to oppose that request.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel post-judgment discovery. The defendants were ordered to respond to the document subpoena by January 1, 2023. Bruce Bent was ordered to appear by Zoom for a deposition with plaintiffs’ counsel on a mutually agreeable date no later than January 15, 2023. The court warned that failure to respond could result in further sanctions.
The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with the motion to compel. The plaintiffs were directed to submit a detailed fee request for the court’s review by January 30, 2023. The order did not set the amount of those additional fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.