United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
HIGHTOWER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
this Court are Stockade Franchising, LP's Opposed Motion
to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests in Aid of
Execution, filed on August 2, 2019 (Dkt. No. 27); Defendant
Gal Premer's Response, filed on September 4, 2019 (Dkt.
No. 32); Kelly Defendants' Opposition to Stockade's
Motion to Compel, filed on September 4, 2019 (Dkt. No. 33);
and Stockade Franchising, LP's Reply, filed on September
11, 2019 (Dkt. No. 35).
August 13, 2019, the District Court referred the above motion
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for disposition pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules
of the United States District Court for the Western District
October 24, 2018, Stockade Franchising, LP
(“Stockade”) filed this lawsuit, pursuant to 9
U.S.C. § 9, to confirm a final arbitration award issued
against Defendants Kelly Restaurant Group, LLC
(“KRG”), Kelly Investment Group, LLC
(“KIG”), Michael Kelly (“Kelly”), and
Gale Premer (“Premer”). The Arbitration Award
found in favor of Plaintiff and ordered Defendants to pay
Stockade significant monetary damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs. See Exh. A to Dkt. No. 20.
9, 2019, the District Court entered a Final Judgment stating
Stockade is entitled to judgment confirming the October 1,
2018 final arbitration award entered in American Arbitration
Association No. 01-17-0003-1350 (“Final Award”),
and attached to this Final Judgment as Exhibit A.
Stockade is entitled to judgment against Defendants Kelly
Restaurant Group, LLC; Kelly Investment Group, LLC; Michael
Kelly; and Gale Premer on the terms set forth in the Final
Award. The terms of the Final Award are incorporated into
this Final Judgment.
Dkt. No. 20 at p. 1.
has now filed the instant Motion to Compel Responses to
Discovery Requests in Aid of Execution, alleging that
Defendants have ignored the Arbitration Award and the Final
Judgment and “have refused to pay a cent to
Stockade.” Dkt. No. 27 at p. 2. Stockade contends that
because Defendants have refused to pay, it was forced to
serve discovery requests on them pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
69(a)(2), and that Defendants have failed to meaningfully
respond. Accordingly, Stockade filed the instant Motion to
Civ. P. 69(a)(2) allows a judgment creditor to “obtain
discovery from any person- including the judgment debtor-as
provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state
where the court is located.” Rule 69 “was
intended to establish an effective and efficient means of
securing the execution of judgments.” JP Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A. v. DataTreasury Corp., 936 F.3d 251,
256 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal citation omitted). “The
scope of postjudgment discovery is very broad to permit a
judgment creditor to discover assets upon which execution may
be made.” F.D.I.C. v. LeGrand, 43 F.3d 163,
172 (5th Cir. 1995). To effectuate that purpose, the
discovery rules are to be liberally construed.
DataTreasury, 936 F.3d at 256.
Court finds that Stockade's requests for the production
of documents and interrogatories to Defendants in this case
were standard requests for discovery designed to discover
information on executable assets. Defendants have failed to
meaningfully respond to these discovery requests. Stockade
has demonstrated that it has been ...