Seed v. Mitchel J. Rowe and SureFlex Hybrids
- John Docherty
- 0:25-cv-03656
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Stine Seed v. Rowe, Magistrate Judge Docherty granted a motion to compel post-judgment discovery but denied the request for attorneys' fees because the defendants appear to lack resources.
Parties who have won a money judgment in federal court and are trying to collect it through post-judgment discovery, and judgment debtors who are unrepresented and appear to lack financial resources.
What happened
In Stine Seed v. Mitchel J. Rowe and SureFlex Hybrids, LLC (No. 25-cv-3656), a judgment of over $1.1 million has already been entered against the defendants. To collect on that judgment, plaintiff Stine Seed served the defendants with written questions and document requests about their assets and debts. The defendants never responded — not to the discovery requests, not to the motion to compel, and not even after receiving two deadline extensions from the court.
The court found that federal rules allow a party who has won a judgment to conduct discovery to help collect it. After independently reviewing Stine Seed's requests, the court found them relevant and proportional. Because the defendants ignored everything, the court ordered them to respond to the discovery requests within 14 days.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty denied Stine Seed's request for attorneys' fees, however. Although the rules normally require a non-responding party to pay the winner's costs of bringing a motion to compel, the court found that would be unjust here. The defendants' own lawyer withdrew after they stopped paying him, leaving them without legal representation, and the court found they appear to lack the financial resources to pay additional fees on top of the existing million-dollar judgment.
The detailed version
- Seed v. Mitchel J. Rowe and SureFlex Hybrids · No. 0:25-cv-03656
- John F. Docherty
- June 9, 2026
Background
Judgment has already been entered against defendants Mitchel J. Rowe and SureFlex Hybrids, LLC for a principal amount of $1,174,823.27 plus post-judgment interest of $43,774.24. To enforce ("execute") that judgment, plaintiff Stine Seed served post-judgment interrogatories (written questions) and document requests on defendants on February 23, 2026, seeking information about defendants' assets and liabilities.
Defendants did not object or respond by the 30-day deadline under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2) and 34(b)(2). Stine Seed then filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 37). Defendants received two extensions of time to respond to that motion but still did not respond. The court canceled the scheduled hearing and decided the motion on written submissions alone.
The defendants are also now without counsel — their attorney was granted leave to withdraw, in part because defendants did not pay him.
Legal Framework
Post-Judgment Discovery
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) permits a judgment creditor (the party owed money under a judgment) to obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, to aid in executing the judgment. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted this rule to allow "full post-judgment discovery" for that purpose. Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int'l Inc., 160 F.3d 428, 430 (8th Cir. 1998). A party may seek a court order compelling such discovery.
Attorneys' Fees Under Rule 37(a)(5)(A)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) provides that when a motion to compel is granted, the court must ordinarily order the non-complying party to pay the moving party's reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees. However, the court must not impose fees if: (1) the moving party failed to attempt in good faith to obtain discovery without court action; (2) the opposing party's failure to respond was "substantially justified"; or (3) "other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust."
Rulings
Motion to Compel — Granted
The court independently reviewed Stine Seed's discovery requests and found them relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Because defendants failed to respond to the requests or to the motion, the court granted the motion to compel. Defendants are ordered to respond to the discovery requests within 14 days of the order.
Request for Attorneys' Fees — Denied
Despite granting the motion to compel, the court denied Stine Seed's request for attorneys' fees. The court invoked the third exception under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) — that "other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust" — pointing to two factors: (1) the case is closed and a judgment exceeding one million dollars has already been entered against defendants; and (2) defendants are unrepresented (pro se) after their counsel withdrew, in part because defendants could not pay him, suggesting defendants lack financial resources. The court stated it was "not inclined in this instance to impose costs on pro se parties who appear to be without resources."
Summary of Dispositions
- Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 37): Granted. Defendants must respond to discovery requests within 14 days. - Request for attorneys' fees: Denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.