The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 17, 2008, the district court entered judgment against Rubloff Aviation Maintenance Services, LLC ("Judgment Debtor") and in favor of NewCourt Capital, USA, Inc. and SW Holding Trust (collectively, "Judgment Creditors") for $269,647.09 plus interest. To satisfy the judgment, the Judgment Creditors initiated supplemental proceedings by issuing citations to discover assets to the Judgment Debtor, third party respondent RD Air, LLC ("RD Air"), and third party respondent MD87-936, LLC ("Rubloff MD87").*fn1 Before the court are three motions for turnover of assets filed by the Judgment Creditors against the Judgment Debtor, RD Air, and Rubloff MD87.
II. The Judgment Creditors' first motion for turnover of assets directed against the Judgment Debtor
During discovery, the Judgment Debtor produced a 2008 Depreciation and Amortization Report ("2008 Report"). (Pls.' Mot. Ex. B.) The 2008 Report lists five items: "Equipment," "Scissor Lifts," "Avial Services-Test Equip," "Avionics Intl-Test Equip," and "Digital Air Data Tester." (Id.) The Judgment Creditors' first motion seeks a court order directing the Judgment Debtor to turn over these five assets.
Rule 69 provides that proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution "must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located." Fed. R. Civ. P. 69. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 277 authorizes supplementary proceedings, initiated by the serving of a citation to discover assets, "against the judgment debtor or any third party the judgment creditor believes has property of or is indebted to the judgment debtor." Illinois Supreme Court Rule 277(a) & (b). Supplementary proceedings must comply with section 2-1402 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Id.
Section 2-1402 provides that the court may compel a judgment debtor to deliver up nonexempt assets to be applied in satisfaction of a judgment. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1402(c). Those assets include "property or effects in the judgment debtor's possession or control, so discovered, capable of delivery and to which [the judgment debtor's] title or right of possession is not substantially disputed." 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1402(c)(1).
The property for which the Judgment Creditors seek an order compelling production does not appear to be exempt under the statute. Indeed, the Judgment Debtor indicated that if it had the items, it would turn them over to the Judgment Creditors. (Def.'s Resp. ¶ 6.) The Judgment Debtor stated in its response brief that "to the best of the recollection of the service people involved, the equipment was broke, possibly sent out to repair, and when the estimates were received, the decision was made not to repair the equipment."*fn2 (Def.'s Resp. ¶ 7.) To the extent that the five sought items are in the Judgment Debtor's possession or control, capable of delivery, and to which the Judgment Debtor's title or right of possession is not substantially disputed, the court orders the Judgment Debtor to turn the items over to the Judgment Creditors.
The Judgment Creditors deposed Amy Harris, an accountant who previously worked for Rubloff Development Group, Inc., the Judgment Debtor's parent company. (Pls.' Reply Ex. 1.) She testified that she occasionally worked on projects for the Judgment Debtor. (Harris Dep. 8:3--15, Aug. 5, 2009.) When asked if she knew who might be able to tell the Judgment Creditors' counsel the disposition of the items on the 2008 Report, Harris stated, "If I was going to ask someone, I would - if someone asked me to find out, I would ask Mike Toll, who is our head pilot." (Id. at 81:21--23.)
Seemingly fueled by the Judgment Debtor's response brief and Harris' testimony, the Judgment Creditors' reply brief requests that the court order the Judgment Debtor to "produce documents regarding or relating to: whether and when the Equipment was broken; that estimates were sought and/or received for the Equipment; that decisions were made not to repair the Equipment; [and] what happened to the Equipment." (Pls.' Reply 4.) Furthermore, the Judgment Creditors request the court order the Judgment Debtor to "produce for examination all individuals, including Mike Toll, having knowledge of: whether and when the Equipment was broken; that estimates were sought and/or received for the Equipment; that decisions were made not to repair the Equipment; [and] what happened to the Equipment." (Id.) Essentially, the Judgment Creditors are seeking leave to supplement the citation they served on the Judgment Debtor with two more discovery requests. The requests are reasonably calculated to discover the disposition of the five items on the 2008 Report. The court grants the Judgment Creditors leave to serve these two additional discovery requests on the Judgment Debtor. The balance of the Judgment Creditors' first motion is denied without prejudice.
III. The Judgment Creditors' second and third motions for turnover of assets directed against RD Air and Rubloff MD87
The Judgment Creditors' second and third motions allege that third parties RD Air and Rubloff MD87 owe money to the Judgment Debtor. Specifically, the Judgment Creditors allege that RD Air owes Judgment Debtor $1,241,684.47 (Pls.' Mot. Against RD Air ¶ 5), and that Rubloff MD87 owes Judgment Debtor $8,080.00 (Pls.' Mot. Against Rubloff MD87 ¶ 5). The motions submitted by the Judgment Creditors do not indicate when or for what the debts were incurred.
The Judgment Creditors' motion requests that the court order RD Air and Rubloff MD87 to pay the Judgment Creditors the amounts due on the debts owed to the Judgment Debtor in satisfaction of the judgment. The Judgment Creditors argue that such a court order would be appropriate under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1402(c)(3). (E.g. Pls.' Mot. Against RD Air ¶ 8.) That section states the following:
[The court can c]ompel any person cited, other than the judgment debtor, to deliver up any assets so discovered, to be applied in satisfaction of the judgment, in whole or in part, when those assets are held under such circumstances that in an action by the judgment debtor he or she could recover them in specie or obtain a judgment for the proceeds or value thereof as for conversion or embezzlement. A judgment creditor may recover a corporate judgment debtor's property on behalf ...