Republic of Guatemala v. IC Power Asia Development Ltd.

Background

Guatemala previously obtained a default judgment against IC Power Asia Development Ltd. (ICPA) recognizing an arbitration award. The award had required ICPA to pay Guatemala $1,803,042.61 for legal costs and expenses. District Judge Colleen McMahon entered the default judgment after ICPA failed to respond to Guatemala’s petition and no counsel appeared for ICPA.

After the default judgment, Guatemala served document requests on ICPA through Gornitzky and Co., which Judge McMahon had previously determined was ICPA’s authorized agent. The requests sought information relevant to post-judgment collection, including information about ICPA’s assets and liabilities. ICPA did not respond by the deadline. Guatemala’s attorney later contacted Gornitzky and Co. to request a response and attempt to resolve the issue without court action, but ICPA still did not respond.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) allows a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from the judgment debtor or other persons to help enforce a judgment. The court explained that this rule permits a broad range of discovery about a judgment debtor’s assets and liabilities. The court found that Guatemala’s document requests fell within that permitted scope.

Under Rule 37, a party seeking an order compelling discovery generally must certify that it made a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court found that Guatemala satisfied this requirement because its attorney sent an email to ICPA’s authorized agent expressly attempting to confer about the discovery.

Rulings

The court granted Guatemala’s motion to compel ICPA to respond to the document requests identified in the motion.

The court also granted Guatemala’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion. It found that Guatemala had attempted in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action, that nothing showed ICPA’s failure to respond was substantially justified, and that no other circumstance made an award unjust. Guatemala was given twenty-one days from the date of the order to submit a declaration detailing its reasonable fees and costs.

The court did not impose contempt sanctions in this order. Instead, if ICPA failed to comply within fourteen days after the order was filed, Guatemala would be allowed to apply for an order requiring ICPA to show why a contempt citation should not issue.