Mark Anthony Brown and Deidra Leigh Brown

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
IN RE: :
:
MARK ANTHONY BROWN : Case No. 04-35148PM
DEIDRA LEIGH BROWN : Chapter 7
a/k/a DEIDRA LEIGH DONAHOE :
:
Debtors :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This case comes before the court on the Debtors’ objections to the motions of Turf
Equipment and Supply Company, Inc., to take a Rule 2004 examinations of the Debtors and to
extend the time for filing complaints under § 523 or § 727 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Debtors’ case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code was filed on November 5, 2004.
Despite having had notice of the filing of the case and the meeting of creditors scheduled January
3, 2005, as well as the bar date for filing objections to discharge and dischargeability of debts set
at March 4, 2005, the Movant did nothing prior to filing the instant motion to extend time on
March 3, 2005. This dilatory procedure is done from time to time by creditors to harass debtors
by waiting until the eve of the entry of an Order for Discharge under Chapter 7 that must be
entered by the Clerk at the time of the expiration of the time in which to object to discharge, that
is, 60 days after the meeting of creditors. See Bankruptcy Rule 4004(c). At the hearing on the
motions, counsel for the moving party explained that this cause of action might be based upon
the action of D.L. Brown Construction, Inc., a corporation said to be controlled and operated by
the Debtors.
Date signed April 19, 2005
Entered: April 20, 2005 Case 04-35148 Doc 68 Filed 04/20/05 Page 1 of 2

While the use of a Rule 2004 examination has been characterized as a legitimate fishing
expedition, In re GHR Energy Corp., 33 B.R. 451, 454 (BC Mass. 1983)., the filing of a
complaint objecting to discharge or to the dischargeability of a debt does subject the filing party
to the sanctions contained in Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The court will grant a single extension of
time for the filing of a complaint objecting to Debtors’ discharge or dischargeability of a debt
owed to it, as well as an Order allowing the taking of Rule 2004 examinations. In making this
ruling the court is not passing in any fashion upon the merits of such an action.
Appropriate orders will be entered.
cc:
Douglas H. Seitz, Esq., One North Charles Street, Suite 1200, Baltimore, MD 21201
Scott C. Borison, Esq., 5500 Buckeystown Pike, Frederick, MD 21703
Steven H. Greenfeld, Trustee, 5028 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20016
Deidra/Mark Brown, 10712 Harry Heth Road, Williamsport, MD 21759
End of Memorandum
Case 04-35148 Doc 68 Filed 04/20/05 Page 2 of 2