United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Peter Denton and Harvest Investors, L.P. have filed a Motion
for Ongoing Discovery [Dkt. No. 184]. This motion has been
referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge
for determination under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See
Dkt. No. 46.
parties met and conferred on this motion and continue to
disagree. At the Court's direction, see Dkt. No.
199, Defendant Rudolf Suter filed a response, Dkt. No. 201,
and Plaintiffs filed their reply, Dkt. No. 204. And, although
Plaintiffs have requested a hearing on this motion, the Court
finds that there is no need for one.
reasons explained below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Peter
Denton and Harvest Investor L.P.'s Motion for Ongoing
Discovery [Dkt. No. 184].
August 23, 2012, Plaintiffs each obtained individual
judgments in this Court against Mr. Suter in the amount of
$1, 025, 430.68 respectively together with interest from the
date of judgment at a rate of 5% per annum from June 2009
until the date of payment. Dkt. No. 15 at 1. Plaintiffs also
jointly obtained judgments in this Court in the amounts of
$3, 076.29, $31, 798.81, and $101, 350.60 for various fees,
expenses, and costs. Id. at 2.
attempted to collect on their judgments by serving Mr. Suter
post-judgment discovery requests. Mr. Suter did not fully
respond to these requests, even after the Court ordered him
to do so. See Dkt. No. 173 (citing this failure to
hold Mr. Suter in contempt). He, instead, left the country.
States District Judge David C. Godbey subsequently entered an
order finding Mr. Suter to be “in civil contempt of
this Court.” Id. at 6. He specifically ordered
that Mr. Suter “shall be coercively incarcerated
1. He “fully and completely respond[s] under
oath” to the discovery requests at issue;
2. He “pays the $27, 605 he owes to the Denton
3. “U.S. Magistrate Judge Horan determines that
Defendant Rudolf Suter has complied with” the above
See Id. at 6-7.
Suter has since returned to the United States and was
arrested in light of Judge Godbey's Order of Civil
Contempt and Coercive Incarceration and the warrant for his
arrest. See Dkt. Nos. 174 & 175 at 1-2.
his arrest, Mr. Suter served amended responses to the
discovery requests at issue. See Dkt. No. 179. But,
after reviewing these answers, the undersigned concluded that
he “[could] not find that Mr. Suter ha[d] at th[at]
time fully and completely responded under oath to the ...