UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
JESSE RAY LEDBETTER CASE NO. 96-10352
a/k/a Marvin Ledbetter
ELEANOR WILLIAMSON LEDBETTER PLAINTIFF
vs. ADV. NO. 97-1007
JESSE RAY LEDBETTER DEFENDANT
a/k/a Marvin Ledbetter
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the defendant=s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce various documents in this proceeding. The plaintiff has filed her response in the matter and the defendant has filed an answer to plaintiff=s response styled AAnswer to Plaintiff=s >Response to Request for Production of Documents= and Request to Amend Petition@. In reviewing that filing the Court is unable to determine the nature of any request to amend petition contained therein.
This action is one seeking the denial of a discharge of the obligations of the debtor and a denial of the dischargeability of the debt of the debtor/defendant to the plaintiff in this action. The plaintiff=s debt is based upon a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on September 8, 1994, a copy of which is attached to the complaint herein. That judgment apparently was taken by default against the defendant. The defendant is pro se in these proceedings.
The allegations of the complaint contend that the defendant, in connection with his bankruptcy filing, transferred property for less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, made false oath or account in connection with the bankruptcy filing, failed to reveal assets in the bankruptcy proceeding, failed to satisfactorily explain the loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet his liabilities and destroyed books and records. The complaint also alleges that the specific indebtedness to the plaintiff should not be discharged in this proceeding for fraud.
The specific debt at issue herein is evidenced by a judgment which, according to the file, is a final judgment. Therefore, the existence of this debt, except for a claim of satisfaction of the judgment which has not been made herein, is not at issue in this adversary proceeding. What is at issue is whether or not the defendant failed to reveal assets, hid assets, committed fraud, etc. as alleged in the complaint.
A review of the request for production of documents clearly shows that the period of time involved is overly broad and the Court can determine no relevancy of the documents requested to the proceedings before the Court. Clearly also, the documents requested would be burdensome even if the plaintiff had these documents. It appears further to the Court that the request for production is designed to harass and annoy the plaintiff. The response of the plaintiff in this matter indicates that most of these documents are not in the plaintiff=s possession. A review of the requested documents leads the Court to conclude that the production of those documents would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in these proceedings. It is therefore
ORDERED that the motion to compel the production of documents herein filed by the defendant be, and the same hereby is, overruled.
By the Court -
WILLIAM S. HOWARD
Elizabeth Lee Thompson, Esq.
Phaedra Spradlin, Esq.
Jesse Ray Ledbetter