## Facts

- The Alberta Securities Commission (ASC), a governmental administrative agency in Alberta, Canada, pursued Lawrence G. Ryckman for violations of Alberta securities law while he was an Alberta resident.
- In January 1996, a Canadian court entered a monetary judgment against Ryckman that required him to pay a fine to the ASC.
- Ryckman moved to Arizona in 1997. The ASC then sought to domesticate the Canadian judgment in Arizona.
- An Arizona state court entered judgment in favor of the ASC, recognizing the Canadian judgment on principles of comity; the Arizona judgment was affirmed on appeal.
- In July 2013, the ASC filed the Arizona judgment in Delaware under Delaware’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) to pursue enforcement against Ryckman in Delaware.
- Ryckman moved under Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 60 to vacate the Delaware filing/enforcement, arguing the Arizona judgment should not be enforceable in Delaware because Delaware could not have recognized the underlying Canadian judgment under Delaware’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act (UFCMJRA), which includes a 15-year limitations period and excludes enforcement of foreign-country “penalties” or “fines.”
- While enforcing the judgment, the ASC served a subpoena duces tecum on Studio One Media, Inc. (Studio One), a Delaware corporation for which Ryckman served as president and CEO, seeking a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee deposition and production of documents related to assets and execution.
- Studio One moved to quash the subpoena, and the ASC moved to compel compliance.

## Issues

1. Whether Delaware must give full faith and credit to a final Arizona judgment (entered to domesticate a Canadian judgment) when the judgment creditor files it in Delaware under the UEFJA.
2. Whether Delaware may refuse to enforce the Arizona judgment by applying Delaware’s UFCMJRA defenses that might have barred direct recognition of the underlying Canadian judgment (including the limitations period and the “penalty/fine” exclusion).
3. Whether the ASC was entitled to post-judgment discovery from Studio One in aid of execution, or whether Studio One’s subpoena should be quashed.

## Decision

- The court denied Ryckman’s Rule 60 motion to vacate the judgment filed in Delaware.
- The court held Delaware was required to enforce the Arizona judgment under full faith and credit and the UEFJA, and Delaware would not re-litigate whether the underlying Canadian judgment could be recognized directly under Delaware’s UFCMJRA.
- The court granted the ASC’s motion to compel Studio One’s compliance with the subpoena (including a corporate designee deposition and document production).
- The court denied Studio One’s motion to quash.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Delaware must enforce a final judgment from a sister state to the same extent the judgment is enforceable in the rendering state, subject to limited defenses (such as lack of jurisdiction or other fundamental defects recognized by full faith and credit doctrine).
- When a foreign-country judgment has already been reduced to a sister-state judgment, the enforcement proceeding in Delaware is treated as enforcement of the sister-state judgment; Delaware does not apply its foreign-country judgment recognition statute to recharacterize or defeat the sister-state judgment.
- Delaware’s UFCMJRA governs direct recognition of foreign-country money judgments in Delaware; it does not supply a basis to deny enforcement of a valid sister-state judgment filed under the UEFJA.
- Post-judgment discovery in aid of execution is available to locate assets and gather information reasonably related to collection, including discovery from a Delaware corporation connected to the judgment debtor, absent a sufficient showing of improper scope or undue burden.

## Conclusion

The Delaware Superior Court enforced the ASC’s Arizona judgment under full faith and credit and the UEFJA, rejecting Ryckman’s effort to use Delaware’s UFCMJRA (including its limitations period and fine/penalty exclusion) to block enforcement, and it allowed the ASC to pursue post-judgment discovery by compelling Studio One to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and responsive documents.


Alberta SEC Comm'n v. Ryckman, 2015 WL 2265473 (2015)