United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION d/b/a REGENCY HOSPITAL COMPANY, Plaintiff,
REBECCA PARDO, et al., Defendants.
T. TREADWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
Select Medical Corporation has filed a motion to compel
Defendant Rebecca Pardo to respond to its post-judgment
discovery requests and has moved the Court to award
attorney's fees incurred in filing the motion. Doc. 22.
Pardo has not responded to the motion. For the reasons
discussed below, that motion (Doc. 22) is GRANTED in
part, and Pardo is ORDERED to
respond to Select's post-judgment discovery requests by
July 10, 2019.
September 18, 2012, Select filed its complaint against Joseph
and Rebecca Pardo for failure to pay Select for the medical
treatment, services, and supplies it provided to Joseph while
he was a patient in Select's Macon, Georgia hospital.
Doc. 1. The Pardos failed to answer the complaint, and the
Court granted Select's motion for default judgment,
entitling Select to damages and costs totaling $539, 908.33,
plus post-judgment interest. Doc. 16. Judgment was
subsequently issued against the Pardos. Doc. 17.
March 8, 2019, Select served Rebecca Pardo with its
post-judgment discovery requests, including requests for
production and interrogatories. Docs. 22-2; 22-3; 22-4. Pardo
failed to respond to these discovery requests by April 8. On
April 18, Select send Pardo a letter requesting that she
respond to the discovery and if she failed to do so by April
29, Select would file a motion to compel. Doc. 22-5. Pardo
failed to respond. On May 9, Select filed its motion to
compel post-judgment discovery and to award attorney's
fees incurred in filing the motion. Doc. 22. As of June 19,
Pardo has yet to respond to the discovery requests.
Motion to Compel
Rules of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) and 69(a)(2) authorize
and support an order compelling discovery. Rule 69(a)(2)
states that judgment creditors are entitled to discovery,
including RFPs and interrogatories, “from any
person-including the judgment debtor”-in aid of the
judgment or execution. Responding parties must answer these
requests within thirty days after being served, absent
circumstances not present here. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2), 34.
Rule 37(a)(3)B) states that a party seeking post-judgment
discovery may move the Court to compel another party to
answer an interrogatory or produce documents.
deciding whether discovery should be compelled, courts must
weigh the relevance of discovery requests against whether
production would be overly burdensome. See United States
v. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 306 n.4 (1991)
(citations omitted). Select states that it is entitled to
this post-judgment discovery because “‘[a]
judgment creditor is entitled to discover the identity and
location of any of the judgment debtor's assets, wherever
located.'” Doc. 22-1 at 3 (quoting Nat'l
Serv. Indus., Inc. v. Vafla Corp., 694 F.2d 246, 250
(11th Cir. 1982)) (other citations omitted). In other words,
the information sought is relevant to Select's collection
efforts. Because Pardo has not responded to the discovery
requests, the Court assumes that production is not overly
burdensome. Accordingly, Select's motion to compel Pardo
to produce the requested documents and answer the
interrogatories is GRANTED. Pardo is
ORDERED to respond to Select's
post-judgment discovery requests that she received on March
8, 2019 by July 10, 2019.
seeks to recover attorney's fees incurred in filing its
motion to compel. Doc. 22-1 at 4. The Court will reserve
ruling on this matter.
foregoing reasons, Select's motion to compel (Doc. 22) is
GRANTED in part. Pardo is
ORDERED to respond to Select's
post-judgment discovery requests (Docs. 22-2; 22-3) that she
received on March 8, 2019 by July 10, 2019.
The Court will reserve ruling on Select's motion for
attorney's fees until a later date.