Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-04422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store, Judge Liman granted Rodriguez’s motion to compel Kevin Reyes to answer a judgment-collection subpoena.
Pablo Ramon Rodriguez may pursue information needed to collect his judgment. Kevin Reyes must respond to the information subpoena within two weeks after receiving the order and subpoena, and may face contempt sanctions for failing to do so. New Generation Hardware Store Corp. remains subject to the judgment, but the response order is directed to Reyes.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp., Pablo Ramon Rodriguez asked the court to require Kevin Reyes to answer a subpoena seeking information needed to collect a $567,406.80 judgment against Reyes and New Generation Hardware Store Corp.
Rodriguez served Reyes with the information subpoena in June 2023, but Reyes did not respond. Reyes and the corporation also did not respond to the motion to compel after the court gave them an opportunity to do so.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion. He ordered Reyes to respond within two weeks after receiving the order and subpoena, warned that failing to respond could lead to contempt sanctions, and authorized Rodriguez to seek reasonable motion expenses and costs.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. New Generation Hardware Store Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-04422
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 22, 2024
Background
The Clerk of Court entered a February 3, 2023 judgment for Pablo Ramon Rodriguez against Kevin Reyes and New Generation Hardware Store Corp. for $567,406.80. The opinion states that no appeal was taken.
To collect the judgment, Rodriguez served Reyes with an information subpoena by first-class and certified mail on June 6, 2023. The subpoena sought information relevant to collecting the judgment and required answers within seven days of receipt. Reyes did not respond.
Rodriguez moved to compel a response under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and 69(a)(2), and New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules 2308(b)(1). The court notified the defendants that it would consider the motion unopposed if no response was filed by November 29, 2023. Rodriguez served the motion and that notice on the defendants, but the court received no response.
Legal standard
After a federal court enters judgment, it generally has authority over later proceedings needed to enforce that judgment. Rule 69(a)(2) allows a judgment creditor to obtain discovery to help enforce a judgment, using federal procedures or the procedures of the state where the court sits. New York law allows an information subpoena to seek matters relevant to satisfying a judgment and requires the recipient to respond within seven days of receipt.
The court explained that post-judgment discovery is generally broad, but it must be calculated to assist in collecting the judgment. Rule 37 also allows the court to order a party to respond to a discovery request. Ordinarily, after an opportunity to be heard, the nonmoving party must pay the moving party’s reasonable expenses for bringing a successful motion unless substantial justification or other circumstances make an award unjust.
Ruling
The court found that Reyes was in default of his discovery obligations under New York law. It ordered Reyes to respond to the information subpoena. The order and subpoena must be served on Reyes, and a certificate of service must be filed on the docket.
The court stated that failure to respond within two weeks after receipt may lead to contempt sanctions. It also authorized Rodriguez to file a motion seeking reasonable expenses and costs; the court did not itself award those expenses in this order.
The motion to compel was GRANTED, and the Clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.