Daniel J. Greene , et.al v. J. Tartaglia Trucking, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
DANIEL J. GREENE, EXECUTIVE 	)
DIRECTOR of the NEW ENGLAND 	)
TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Civil Action No. 14-14224-PBS
v. 	)
)
J. TARTAGLIA TRUCKING, INC., 	)
TARTAGLIA TRUCKING CO., INC., 	)
and TRI CITY PETROLEUM, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
____________________________________)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTARY
PROCESS PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. 69 AND M.G.L. c. 224, § 141
[Docket No. 89]
February 27, 2026
Boal, M.J.
On March 1, 2017, Judge Saris entered judgment in favor of plaintiff Daniel J. Greene2
against defendants J. Tartaglia Trucking, Inc., Tartaglia Trucking Co., Inc., and Tri City
Petroleum. Docket No. 80. The judgment awarded the following: (1) $544,308 in withdrawal
liability; (2) interest on the withdrawal liability in the amount of $87,890.64; (3) $108,861.60 in
liquidated damages; and (4) $47,541.28 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. The total award of
1 On February 2, 2026, Judge Patti B. Saris referred this motion to the undersigned. Docket No.
90.
2 On November 13, 2025, Judge Saris granted Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Daniel J. Greene
for Edward F. Groden as the plaintiff’s Executive Director. Docket Nos. 86, 88.
Case 1:14-cv-14224-PBS Document 91 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
$788,601.52 began to accrue post-judgment interest at the statutory rate from the judgment’s date
of entry. Id.
According to Greene, Defendants have made no effort to satisfy the judgment. Docket
No. 89 at 1-2. Greene asserts that despite serving post-judgment interrogatories and requests for
production (and filing an order to compel the same), Defendants provided only “incomplete
responses.” Id. Greene further claims that after several attempts to secure the missing
documents and supplemental responses, Defendants have ignored all further inquiries and
refused to engage in good faith efforts to confer and schedule depositions. Id. at 2. Greene now
asks this court to issue a summons for J. Tartaglia Trucking, Inc., and Tartaglia Trucking Co.,
Inc., to appear in court for examination of their assets, property, and ability to pay the judgment.
Defendants have not opposed the motion. For the following reasons, this Court grants the
motion.3
Rule 69(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a judgment creditor to “obtain
discovery from any person – including the judgment debtor.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). “The
rules governing discovery in postjudgment execution proceedings are quite permissive,”
Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134, 138 (2014), and “[l]iberal discovery
is afforded to judgment creditors” under Rule 69, ClearOne Commc’ns. Inc. v. Chiang, 276
3 Post-judgment motions may be referred to magistrate judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
See Conetta v. Nat’l Hair Care Centers, Inc., 236 F.3d 67, 74 (1st Cir. 2001). A de novo standard
of review is generally applied to rulings on matters referred to magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(3). See id. However, courts have treated motions for post-judgment discovery as
analogous to non-dispositive pretrial discovery dispositions and, therefore, issued orders in such
matters rather than report and recommendations. See, e.g., In re Classic Mare Lease Litig., No.
MDL 1877, 2017 WL 27455, at *7, n. 19 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2017); Fuddruckers, Inc. v. KCOB I,
LLC, 31 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1276, n. 1 (D. Kan. 1998). Accordingly, this Court issues an order in
this matter. Regardless of the standard of review, a party objecting to this order must file an
objection within fourteen days of service of the order. Failure to object waives a party’s right to
review.
Case 1:14-cv-14224-PBS Document 91 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
F.R.D. 402, 404 (D. Mass. 2011) (internal quotation omitted). The “presumption is in favor of
‘full discovery of any matters arguably related to the creditor’s efforts to trace the debtor’s assets
and otherwise to enforce its judgment.’” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, Greene is entitled to
discovery to determine the location and value of Defendants’ assets in aid of execution.
In addition, Rule 69(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:
A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs
otherwise. The procedure on execution – and in proceedings supplementary to and
in aid of judgment or execution – must accord with the procedure of the state where
the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). Courts “consistently read Rule 69(a) as limiting all federal process on
money judgments to the type of process available under state law.” Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v.
Markarian, 114 F.3d 346, 350 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting Gabovitch v. Lundy, 584 F.2d 559, 561
(1st Cir. 1978)).
Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 224, § 14:
A judgment creditor . . . may file in court an application for supplementary process
under this chapter. Upon the filing of such an application, a summons may issue,
requiring the judgment debtor to appear at a time and place named therein and
submit to an examination relative to his or its property and ability to pay.
Id. Thus, the Court will issue an order for examination of Defendants. Greene shall cause the
order together with a copy of Greene’s Post-Judgment Interrogatories and Request for Production
of Documents to be served upon Defendants by an officer qualified to serve civil process by
delivering it to an officer, managing or general agent, or to the person in charge of the business at
the principal place of business, or by delivering the documents to any other agent authorized to
receive service of process. This service shall be completed on or before March 13, 2026.
SO ORDERED. 	/s/ Jennifer C. Boal
JENNIFER C. BOAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:14-cv-14224-PBS Document 91 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3