United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ARNOLD SANSONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is Defendants Sylvia Warren and Donald Warren,
Sr.'s Motion for Sanctions and to Compel Plaintiff's
Attendance at its Own Deposition (Doc. 160), Plaintiff
Sequoia Financial Solutions, Inc.'s Response to the
Motion to Compel of the Warren Defendants (Doc. 164), and
Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 169).
19, 2014, the Court dismissed the above-styled case. (Doc.
112). On January 28, 2015, the Court granted Defendants'
Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs incurred a result of
this action. (Doc. 130). Plaintiff appealed the award of
attorney's fees and costs, inter alia, to the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 150).
August 17, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit rendered an opinion and
judgment affirming all appealed orders, including the award
of attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. 158). On September 1,
2016, appellate costs were taxed against Plaintiff by the
Clerk of the Eleventh Circuit in the amount of $80.40. (Doc.
159). In addition, the Eleventh Circuit also entered an award
for appellate attorney's fees in the amount of $11,
427.00. (Doc. 160, p. 2).
November 25, 2016, Defendants filed the instant Motion for
Sanctions and to Compel Plaintiff's Attendance at its Own
Deposition, asserting that on November 16, 2016,
Plaintiff's corporate representative and records
custodian, failed to appear for their scheduled depositions
in aid of execution of Defendants' award of
attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. 160). On December 17,
2016,  Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition
to Defendants' Motion, arguing that the depositions at
issue were unilaterally set and leave to depose these
witnesses should have been sought. (Doc. 164). In addition,
Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not confer with
opposing counsel prior to filing their Motion, in violation
of Local Rule 3.01(g), M.D. Fla., as well as Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37. (Id.). On December 21, 2016,
Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply, stating
that counsel “attempted to contact the attorney of
record for [Plaintiff] twice by telephone and once by email
(with no response whatsoever).” (Doc. 165, p. 2).
December 22, 2016, the Court entered an Order directing the
parties to confer regarding the pending motions and file a
certificate of compliance. (Doc. 166). Specifically, the
Court reminded both parties of the requirement to respond
promptly to inquiries and communications from opposing
counsel. (Id. at p. 2). On December 30, 2016,
Defendants filed a certification outlining the numerous
attempts made to confer with Plaintiff's counsel
regarding the motions. (Doc. 167). It appears from
Defendants' certification that counsel made numerous
reasonable efforts to contact Plaintiff's counsel, who
failed to cooperate with these attempts. (Id.).
Plaintiff has not disputed this claim.
January 4, 2017, the undersigned granted Defendants'
request for leave to file a reply. (Doc. 168). On January 11,
2017, Defendants filed a reply, reiterating their position
that the undersigned should enter an Order compelling
Plaintiff's corporate representative to attend a
deposition in aid of execution and for
sanctions. (Doc. 169).
this matter is now ripe for judicial review.
courts have always had jurisdiction to enforce their
judgments.” Heape v. Flanagan, No. 607CV012,
2008 WL 2439736, at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 9, 2008); see also
Eagerton v. Valuations, Inc., 698 F.2d 1115,
1118 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1983) (“Ancillary jurisdiction may
be properly exercised to protect a judgment of a court
through enforcement”). Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, provides:
In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or
a successor in interest whose interest appears of record may
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). “Rule 69(a) provides the
process by which a judgment creditor can enforce a money
judgment and authorizes post-judgment discovery in aid of
execution of that judgment.” In re Clerici,
481 F.3d 1324, 1336 (11th Cir. 2007); see also First
Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fisher,
422 F.Supp. 1 (N.D.Ga. 1976) (“In absence of
determination by trial court that judgment has been
satisfied, plaintiff is entitled, as matter of law, to
executions on judgment and discovery pursuant to Rule
Defendants are entitled to discovery in aid of execution of
the award of attorney's fees and costs incurred as a
result of this action. (Doc. 130). In addition, ...