The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant for over $4 million arising from fraudulent schemes, brought a motion for orders under Rule 60.18(6) to examine the defendant's spouse and compel document production from non-party banks and accountants.
The plaintiffs also sought leave under Rule 60.08(2) to issue a notice of garnishment more than six years after the judgment.
The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had faced difficulty enforcing the judgment due to the defendant's refusals and non-compliance with previous orders, and that the non-parties likely possessed relevant information regarding the defendant's assets and income.
