The Experience Hendrix, LLC v. Electric Hendrix, LLC “Hendrix Electric” vodka case is over.
Mostly.
Plaintiffs now seek to collect their judgment against defendants, including Craig Dieffenbach.
Plaintiffs recently complained that Mr. Dieffenbach was not forthcoming during supplemental proceedings. Indeed, they moved for an order of contempt, arguing that defendants’ “evasive and incomplete responses” to plaintiffs’ discovery efforts have “frustrated” their ability to determine if defendants have concealed or fraudulently conveyed assets that could be used to satisfy the judgment.
Today, Western District Judge Thomas Zilly denied the motion without prejudice.
The court found: “Plaintiffs make no showing that Mr. Dieffenbach failed to comply with the Court’s Order dated October 28, 2009, which simply required responses within twenty days, or with any other order. Moreover, plaintiffs offer no evidence to support their assertion that Mr. Dieffenbach’s answers were untruthful. Although the tenor of the deposition was acrimonious, Mr. Dieffenbach’s animosity alone does not establish that he was being less than candid when he indicated that he ‘own[s] nothing,’ has ‘no assets,’ and ‘owe[s] money to absolutely everybody.’ In their motion for contempt, plaintiffs do not request monetary sanctions, but rather seek an order from the Court requiring Mr. Dieffenbach inter alia to sign stipulations to release bank records and to locate and produce documents under the control of other people, namely current and/or former attorneys, bookkeepers, accountants, and employees. Plaintiffs fail to explain, however, why they cannot obtain the documents they seek by serving these entities or individuals with appropriate subpoenas or discovery requests.”
The case cite is Experience Hendrix, LLC v. Electric Hendrix, LLC, No. 07-338 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2010).