Invesco High Yield Fund v. Jecklin, No. 21-15809 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The district court entered a $38,489,055 judgment against Jecklin, a Swiss citizen, and two businesses he controls, also awarding post-judgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs propounded post-judgment interrogatories and requests for the production of documents pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 69(A)(2), which authorizes a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from a judgment debtor to aid in the execution of a judgment. When the Jecklin Defendants failed to produce the requested discovery, the court granted a motion to compel responses under Rule 37. The Defendants did not comply. At a status conference, they advised the court, through counsel, that “they are not going to comply with the Court order compelling discovery because they do not accept jurisdiction of this Court and they consider Your Honor’s decision not to be enforceable in Switzerland.” Plaintiffs moved for sanctions. Plaintiffs sought the issuance of an arrest warrant.
The district court held the Defendants in civil contempt, imposed a daily fine, and found that their “pattern of disregarding the Court’s Order supports the coercive sanction of arrest.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed; 28 U.S.C. 1826(a), which provides that when a witness refuses to testify or provide other information, including documentary evidence, the court “may summarily order his confinement ... until ... the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information,” applies to an individual who refuses to comply with a court order compelling responses to post-judgment written discovery requests.
Court Description: Recalcitrant Witness Statute. The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel and holding Hans Jecklin in contempt as a recalcitrant witness. The panel held that the federal recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), applied to an individual who refused to comply with a court order compelling responses to post- judgment written discovery requests. The panel rejected * The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. INVESCO HIGH YIELD FUND V. JECKLIN 3 Jecklin’s contention that the statute applied only to a refusal to provide in person testimony, not to a refusal to answer interrogatories or produce documents. The panel also rejected Jecklin’s contention that the statute applied to a refusal to produce prejudgment, but not post-judgment, discovery. The panel affirmed the district court’s issuance of the arrest warrant, and dissolved this court’s stay of the arrest warrant. The panel addressed the remaining issues in a concurrently filed memorandum.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.