United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's/Judgment Creditor's Emergency Motion Against Four Garnishee Defendants to Compel Production of Documents and for Sanctions Against Garnishee Defendants and Their Counsel [Doc. #242]. For the reasons discussed below, the motion GRANTED, except for the request for sanctions, which is DENIED.
At issue in this case is an Eastern District of California default judgment for $81, 170, 331.74 against Bernard Glieberman and the Glieberman Revocable Living Trust ("the Trust"), and in favor of Plaintiff BR North 223, LLC. The judgment was registered in the Eastern District of Michigan on February 26, 2013. Plaintiff issued four subpoenas duces tecum to Garnishee Defendants HRS Communities, LLC ("HRS"), Home Renewal Systems, LLC ("Renewal Systems"), Home Renewal Realty Georgia, LLC ("Renewal Realty"), and Londonberry Residential, LLC ("Londonberry").
In response to the subpoenas, HRS, Renewal Systems, and Renewal Realty objected to Document Requests 7, 8, 9, and 12, and stated that "no such documents exist" as to the remaining requests. Londonberry also objected to Document Requests 7, 8, 9, and 12, and, according to Plaintiff, produced redacted documents in response to other requests.
The requests to which objections were made are as follows:
7. Any and all bank records, including statements, of Garnishee from January 1, 2013 to present.
8. Any and all ledgers, books or other statement of account reflecting payments and/or deposits of Garnishee from January 1, 2013 to present.
9. Any and all federal tax returns filed by Garnishee for 2012, 2013 and 2014, through present, including all schedules, attachments, and requests for extension, if any.
12. Any and all documents that reflect, refer or relate to communications about the Writs of Garnishment served upon Garnishee in this matter, and/or the Disclosures prepared and submitted in response thereto.
The Garnishee Defendants interposed the following objection to Document Requests 7, 8, and 9:
Garnishee objects to Duces Tecum Request  because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Garnishee further objects to Duces Tecum Request  because it calls for the disclosure of private, privileged, financial and confidential information.
Garnishee Defendant Londonberry interposed the following objection to Document Request 12:
Garnishee objects to Duces Tecum Request No. 12 because the request calls for information which is protected by the attorney-client privilege ...