You're viewing Docket Item 20 from the case Lozovskyy et al v. Oxenuk et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:12-cv-01646-PMP-CWH Document 20 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

EDUARD LOZOVSKYY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________________________)

vs.
VASSILLI OXENUK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cv-01646-PMP-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Three Judgment Debtor

Examinations and to Produce Documents (#19), filed on December 12, 2012.

BACKGROUND

On December 5, 2012, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment was granted. See Order
#17. A default judgment in the amount of $5,148,191.47 as well as post-judgment interest was
entered in favor of Plaintiffs. In this motion, Plaintiffs request an order scheduling judgment debtor
examinations of judgment debtors Vassilli Oxenuk, Fedor Sergeyevich Sannikov, and Inna Oxenuk
because no payment has been received and the judgment debtors have failed to appear before the
Court. Additionally, Plaintiffs request that the undersigned Magistrate Judge conduct the judgment
debtor examinations. Finally, Plaintiffs request that the Court order the production of documents in
advance of the examinations.

DISCUSSION

Judgment Debtor Examinations

A.
Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 21.270.1(b) provides that a judgment creditor, at any time

after the judgment is entered, is “entitled to an order from the judge of the court requiring the
judgment debtor to appear and answer upon oath or affirmation concerning his or her property.”
Such an examination may occur before the judge or master appointed by the judge or an attorney

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:12-cv-01646-PMP-CWH Document 20 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

representing the judgment creditor. Id. NRS 21.270 further provides that “[n]o judgment debtor
may be required to appear outside the county in which he resides.”

The Court agrees that the requested judgment debtor examinations are authorized under the

aforementioned law. Additionally, Plaintiffs request that the examinations occur before the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-9(k) because such supervision is
necessary given the severity and scope of the judgment debtor’s fraudulent conduct. The Court
finds good cause for the three judgment debtor examinations and agrees to preside over such
examinations.

Discovery

B.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 permits a judgment creditor to obtain post-judgment
discovery pursuant to either the procedures set forth under the law of the state where the court is
located or a federal statute. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 69(a); see also Alcalde v. NAC Real Estate
Investments & Assignments, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 969, 971 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“The judgment
creditor may also propound discovery to the judgment debtor, including requests for production
and/or inspection of documents.”). The scope of post-judgment discovery is broad; the judgment-
creditor is permitted to make a broad inquiry to discover any hidden or concealed assets of a
judgment-debtor. See 1st Technology, LLC v. Rational Enterprises, LTDA, et al., 2007 WL
5596692 *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 13, 2007) (citation omitted) (allowing post-judgment discovery to gain
information relating to the existence or transfer of the judgment debtor’s assets). Further, in aid
obtaining information about a judgment debtor’s assets “[w]itnesses may be required to appear and
testify before the judge or master conducting any proceeding under this chapter in the same manner
as upon the trial of an issue.” See NRS 21.310.

The Court finds that there is good cause for the requested discovery because it is tailored to
identify assets that can be used to satisfy the judgment in this case. Plaintiffs seek to discover any
real estate, bank accounts, or personal property owned by the judgment debtors. Additionally,
Plaintiffs’ seek to determine whether the judgment creditors have fraudulently transferred any funds
or assets in violation of NRS 112.180. The Court notes that discovery requests must conform to
the Federal Rule or “the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2).

2

Case 2:12-cv-01646-PMP-CWH Document 20 Filed 12/18/12 Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs should propound the requests for production of documents in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 along with their request that the documents be produced at
least seven days prior to the examination. The Court finds that it is not necessary at this time to
issue an order compelling Vassilli Oxenuk, Fedor Sergeyevich Sannikov , and Inna Oxenuk to
produce the requested discovery as they have not failed to comply with discovery requests. As a
result, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ request with respect to the motion to produce documents,
without prejudice.

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Three Judgment Debtor

Examinations and to Produce Documents (#19) is granted in part and denied in part without
prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Vassilli Oxenuk, Fedor Sergeyevich Sannikov , and
Inna Oxenuk shall appear before the undersigned Magistrate Judge in Courtroom 3B at the Lloyd
D. George United States Courthouse, 333 Las Boulevard South, Las Vegas Nevada at 9:30 a.m. on
Monday, January 28, 2013 to answer questions under oath regarding assets and for such other
proceedings as there may occur consistent with proceedings supplementary to execution.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order shall be personally served upon
Vassilli Oxenuk, Fedor Sergeyevich Sannikov, and Inna Oxenuk at least fourteen (14) calendar
days before the hearing scheduled herein. Failure to appear may subject the judgment debtor to
punishment for contempt of court.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2012.

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28