Evidence – Defendants must respond to post-judgment discovery

Where defendants agreed to respond to post-judgment discovery if their motion for relief from default judgment was denied in a Texas district court, and their motion was then denied, they must respond to the discovery.

Background

Xlink Resource Group LLC moves to compel responses to its post-judgment discovery requests to Archer Energy Corporation, Archer Tactical Group and David Tollaksen.

Analysis

Plaintiff registered the foreign judgment against defendants in this court and propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents to defendants. After defendants sought relief from the judgment in the Eastern District of Texas, the parties jointly stipulated to temporarily stay the pending party discovery “pending a ruling on Defendant[s’] Motion[s] to Set Aside Default Judgment in the Texas case.”

The parties also stipulated that, if that motion was denied by the Eastern District of Texas, that “Defendant[s] shall provide good faith responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding Discovery Requests within fourteen (14) days of the denial of said motion.” At the parties’ request, the court approved the parties’ agreement and stipulation and ordered defendants “to provide good faith responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding Interrogatories and Requests within 14 days of any denial of the Defendant[s’] motion[s].”

Defendants have violated their agreement and the court’s orders. Defendants summarily assert that their stipulation and the court’s orders do not mandate immediate compliance with the outstanding discovery, particularly when, as here, they have noted an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Although contending that such a “reading is overly rigid and ignores both context and governing law,” defendants offer no compelling reason why represented parties should not be held to their agreements and to comply with the court’s orders. Given defendants’ agreement to respond to discovery promptly upon denial of their motion by the Eastern District of Texas—rather than pending an appeal—the court expects and will compel defendants to do just that. Nor is the court persuaded that either the interests of justice or the prudent exercise of its discretion requires setting the prior stipulations aside.

Further, the court rejects defendants’ argument that the filing of an appeal in and of itself warrants denial of the plaintiff’s motions or entry of another stay of post-judgment discovery. Indeed, the default rule specified in Rule 62(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that execution on a judgment and proceedings to enforce it are stayed for 30 days after entry of that judgment. As the Eastern District of Texas entered its judgment on April 2, 2025, that 30-day period has long since passed.

Absent application of exceptions specified in Rule 62(c) and (d), which have no bearing here, Rule 62(b) further provides that a party may seek a stay by providing a bond or other security to be approved by the court. Nothing before the court, however, suggests that defendants have availed themselves of this remedy before the Eastern District of Texas or sought similar relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Absent any such action by defendants, particularly after having defaulted in the underlying litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, further delaying responses to the pending discovery is unwarranted.

Finally, defendants argue that, even if discovery were otherwise appropriate under these circumstances, plaintiff’s discovery requests are “facially excessive,” overbroad and unduly burdensome. As noted by plaintiff, however, defendants have both failed to meet and confer about the scope of the requested discovery and to make timely objections in response thereto. Accordingly, defendants’ objections are waived and defendants must respond to the pending discovery.

Plaintiff’s motions to compel granted.

Xlink Resource Group, LLC v. Expo Petroleum Oil and Gas USA, LLC, Case No. 2:25-mc-19, 2:25-mc-20, 2:25-mc-21, May 7, 2026. EDVA at Norfolk (Krask). VLW 026-3-207. 6 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-207