United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division
DAVID C. KEESLER JUDGE
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants Bruce Blackmon And Lyn Blackmon’s Motion To Modify Subpoenas” (Document No. 61). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is ripe for disposition. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion.
The background most relevant to the pending motion begins on or about August 11, 2014, when the remaining parties in this lawsuit filed their “Joint Motion For Consent Judgment” (Document No. 43). The Court entered the parties’ “Consent Judgment” (Document No. 44) on September 15, 2014. The “Consent Judgment” provides that judgment is entered in favor of RREF II DEU-NC III, LLC (“Lender” or “Plaintiff”) against Investments International, Inc. and Bruce Blackmon in the amount of $1, 257, 133.58, and against Lyn Blackmon in the amount of $854, 782.67. (Document No. 44, p.1).
On October 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed its “Request For Clerk To Issue Notice To Debtor Of Right To Have Exemptions Designated.” (Document No. 45). The Clerk of Court issued a “Notice Of Right To Have Exemptions Designated” (Document No. 50) on October 28, 2014. The Court’s “Notice Of Right To Have Exemptions Designated” states in pertinent part:
Under the Constitution and laws of North Carolina, you have the right to exempt from the collection of the judgment certain of your property . . . If you wish to keep your exempt property, you MUST fill out the attached Motion To Claim Exempt Property and mail or take it to the Clerk of Court at the address listed below. . . . The law gives you another option of requesting, in writing, a hearing before the Clerk to claim your exemptions. If you make a written request for a hearing, you will be notified of the time and place of the hearing when you may claim your exemptions.
(Document No. 50, p.1). See also, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1C-1603(e)(1) (“the judgment debtor may either file a motion to designate exemptions with a schedule of assets or may request, in writing, a hearing before the clerk to claim exemptions.”).
Defendants Lyn Blackmon and Bruce Blackmon (together, the “Blackmon Defendants”) each filed a “Notice To Claim Exempt Property (Statutory Exemptions)” on December 4, 2014. (Document Nos. 52 and 53). Plaintiff’s “Objection To Defendant Bruce Blackmon’s Notice To Claim Exempt Property” (Document No. 54) and “Objection To Defendant Lynn Blackmon’s Notice To Claim Exempt Property” (Document No. 55) were filed December 15, 2014. Plaintiff’s Objections assert that Plaintiff intends to conduct post-judgment discovery to determine the validity of the exemptions claimed by Defendants, and that it reserves the right to assert any other applicable basis for objection by amendment of its Objections, or at any hearing held on Defendants’ claimed exemptions. (Document No. 54, p.4 and Document No. 55, p.4). Plaintiff filed Notices of Subpoenas on December 19 and 31, 2014. (Document Nos. 56, 58, and 60).
Now pending before the Court is “Defendants Bruce Blackmon and Lyn Blackmon’s Motion To Modify Subpoenas” (Document No. 61) filed on December 31, 2014. Defendants’ “…Motion[s] To Modify…” request that the Court amend the issued Subpoenas to: (1) limit the dates of records requested to 2011 through 2014; (2) remove entities that are not parties to this case from the Subpoenas; (3) remove Defendants’ IRA institutions from the Subpoenas; and (4) set this matter for a hearing to determine Defendants’ exemptions prior to any response to the Subpoenas. (Document No. 61, pp.2-3). “Plaintiff’s Response To Defendants Bruce And Lyn Blackmon’s Motion To Modify Subpoenas” (Document No. 64) was filed on January 13, 2015; and “Defendants Reply To Plaintiff’s Response…” (Document No. 68) was filed on January 23, 2015. “Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply . . .” (Document No. 69) was filed on January 28, 2015; however, Plaintiff did not seek leave of the Court to file a sur-reply.
The pending motion is now ripe for review and disposition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The undersigned finds the following legal authority instructive on the issues before the Court.
Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 69 provides as follows:
(1) Money Judgment; Applicable Procedure. A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution--and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution--must accord with the procedure of the state where the ...