“I Have a Civil Lawsuit Judgment. What’s Next?”

The litigation process is undeniably a long, drawn-out process; taking a case from filing the complaint through the jury verdict stage can take several years. However, when you bring a claim and a jury renders a verdict in your favor, the feeling is tremendous. But that does not wrap everything up; the question then becomes: how does one collect on a judgment? Specifically, how does a prevailing party know what assets a losing party has in order to collect on a judgment? This article outlines the various discovery rules in Arizona, California, and on the federal level, which permit a judgment creditor to obtain information regarding the judgment debtor’s assets in order to collect on a judgment.

Post-Judgment Discovery Tools in Arizona

“Post-judgment discovery is available to ascertain additional sources from which the judgment can be satisfied.” Ash v. Arnold, 115 Ariz, 462, 463, 565 P.2d 1323, 1324 (Ct. App. 1977). Ariz. R. Civ. P. 69(c) provides as follows:

In the aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or a successor in interest whose interest appears from the record may obtain discovery from any person—including the judgment debtor—as provided in these rules and other applicable law.

Thus, pursuant to Rule 69(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment creditor may utilize discovery tools that are accessible during the litigation process.

As a result, the following discovery tools are accessible to a judgment creditor:

•  Oral Depositions, pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 30

• Interrogatories, pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 33
  

• Requests for Production of Documents, pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 34

• Requests for Admission, pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 36
  

Because Rule 69(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure permits post-judgment discovery to the same degree as during the litigation process, a judgment creditor has a wide variety of tools in obtaining information regarding the judgment debtor’s assets.

Post-Judgment Discovery Tools in California

In California, judgment creditors may propound written interrogatories pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.020. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.020(a) provides as follow:

The judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories to the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4, requesting information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall answer the interrogatories in the manner and within the time provided by Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010 of Title 4 of Part 4.

Thus, a judgment creditor must adhere to the provisions of Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2030.010 to propound post-judgment interrogatories. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2030.010(b) provides as follows:

An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.

However, Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.020(b) places a limitation on the number of interrogatories served within a certain time period. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.020(b) provides as follows:

The judgment creditor may not serve interrogatories pursuant to this section within 120 days after the judgment debtor has responded to interrogatories previously served pursuant to this section or within 120 days after the judgment debtor has been examined pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 708.110), and the judgment debtor is not required to respond to any interrogatories so served.

Therefore, post-judgment interrogatories are permissible pursuant to California law, subject to the aforementioned limitations.

In addition, California permits post-judgment requests for production of documents pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.030. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.020(a) provides as follows:

The judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party's behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made in the manner provided in Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4, if the demand requests information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall respond and comply with the demand in the manner and within the time provided by Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.

Thus, a judgment creditor must adhere to the provisions of Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2031.010 to propound post-judgment requests for production of documents. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2031.010(a) provides as follows:

Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action.

However, analogous to post-judgment interrogatories, there are certain limitations to post-judgment requests for production of documents. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.030(b) provides as follows:

The judgment creditor may not serve interrogatories or inspection demands pursuant to this section or Section 708.020 within 120 days after the judgment debtor has responded to the interrogatories or demands previously served pursuant to this section or Section 708.020, or within 120 days after the judgment debtor has been examined pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 708.010), and the judgment debtor is not required to respond to any discovery so served.

Therefore, post-judgment requests for production of documents are permissible pursuant to California law, subject to the aforementioned limitations.

Last, a judgment creditor may initiate a post-judgment examination, in which the judgment creditor may propound questions upon the judgment creditor to ascertain the extent of the judgment debtor’s assets. Cal. Civ. Proc. "Times New Roman",serif">§ 708.110(a) provides as follows:

The judgment creditor may apply to the proper court for an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court, or before a referee appointed by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.

In addition, if a judgment creditor has conducted a post-judgment examination in the previous 120 days, a second may be conducted upon showing good cause to the court. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 708.110(c) provides as follows:

If the judgment creditor has caused the judgment debtor to be examined under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court shall make the order if the judgment creditor by affidavit or otherwise shows good cause for the order. The application shall be made on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule so requires. Otherwise, it may be made ex parte.

Post-Judgment Discovery Tools in Federal Courts

Fed. R. Civ. P. (69)(a)(2) provides as follows:

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.

As a result, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the following discovery tools are for a judgment creditor:

• Oral Depositions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30
  

• Interrogatories, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33
  

• Requests for Production of Documents, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34
  

• Requests for Admission, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36
  

Thus, a judgment creditor has great authority under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to propound discovery requests, outlined above.

Conclusion

Collecting on a money judgment is difficult without being aware of the vast discovery tools at a judgment creditor’s disposal. In Arizona, California, and on the federal level, the aforementioned discovery techniques will allow a judgment creditor to be fully informed as to the assets a judgment debtor possesses in order to fulfill a monetary judgment.