Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 69-I
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
Stylistic changes were made to this rule to conform with the 2007 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, some time periods were adjusted to reflect the new time computation method in Rule 6. However, the garnishee's time for filing answers to the interrogatories was not increased because it is statutory. Additionally, the rule now specifies the contents of the writ of attachment on non-wages, which includes a list of funds that are exempt from attachment. Finally, new section (i) establishes procedures for filing a motion claiming that funds are exempt from a writ of attachment.
COMMENT
[Moved from the comment to Rule 69 -II.] Rule 69 -I states the local attachment procedures available in the Superior Court and comprehended by the Rule 69 phrase "shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the District of Columbia". Section 69 -I(a) modifies the broad authorization of unlimited discovery by providing that a subpoena duces tecum, a subpoena ad testificandum ad-dressed to a person other than the judgment debtor, or more than 1 subpoena ad testificandum or deposition notice ad-dressed to the judgment debtor may issue only upon order of the Court. This provision was based on extensive experience in the Court of General Sessions with execution proceedings and the desire to provide a safeguard against harassment of the judgment debtor and other persons, especially the judgment debtor's employer. Section (e) has been amended in order to conform to Household Finance Corporation v. Training Research and Development, Inc., 316 A. 2d 850 (D.C. App. 1973) which held that the time period within which a judgment of recovery must be applied for should not be measured from any act or requirement relating to the answering of interrogatories when the attachment is an attachment on wages, salary or commissions and the judgment of recovery is being sought for failure to remit a payment due under the writ. The section now provides that in such cases the time period should begin from the time that a payment is due and not paid. The length of the time period in such cases was made far longer than for other cases be-cause of the Advisory Committee's recognition that in attachments on wages, salary and commissions, there are frequently uncertain intervals during which the debtor is temporarily laid off or does not appear for work. See D.C. Code § 16-576 (1973 Ed.).