ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2017, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 250) filed by plaintiff Advanced Fluid Systems, Inc. ("AFS"), seeking sanctions against defendants Kevin Huber ("Huber") and Integrated Systems and Machinery, LLC ("Integrated Systems"), including but not limited to a contempt finding and preclusion order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), for the alleged violation of the stipulated order (Doc. 63) approved by the court on May 22, 2014, and further upon consideration of the joint response (Doc. 274) thereto filed by Huber and Integrated Systems, and following a hearing on the subject of AFS's motion on September 7, 2017, the court observing that a party seeking a sanction of civil contempt must prove three elements, to wit: (1) that a valid court order existed, (2) that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of that order, and (3) that the alleged contemnor disobeyed the order, see Marshak v. Treadwell, 595 F.3d 478, 486 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Roe v. Operation Rescue, 54 F.3d 133, 137 (3d Cir. 1995)), which elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, id., and there being no dispute sub judice that a valid court order dated May 22, 2014 exists and provides, in pertinent part, that:

(Doc. 63 ¶ 1), and the court having found during the contempt hearing that Huber's testimony that he retained (and, indeed, continues to retain) documents and other electronically stored information subject to the stipulated order on his Integrated Systems email account establishes a violation thereof, satisfying the first and third elements for a civil contempt finding, see Marshak, 595 F.3d at 486 (quoting Roe, 54 F.3d at 137), such that the only extant dispute is whether Huber and Integrated Systems knew that the stipulated order required them to delete any residual copies of the documents and information once turned over to AFS, and, mindful that any ambiguity in the allegedly-violated order must be resolved in favor of the purported contemnor, F.T.C. v. Lane Labs-USA, Inc., 624 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting John T. v. Del. Cty. Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 552 (3d Cir. 2003)), the court concluding that, although the circumstances leading to entry of the stipulated order—viz., withdrawal of AFS's preliminary injunction motion in exchange for agreed return of documents—make the parties' intent clear, the stipulated order itself is less than pellucid as concerns Huber's and Integrated System's obligation to divest themselves of any residual copies of AFS's documents and information, such that the court cannot conclude that AFS has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Huber and Integrated Systems knew the stipulated order proscribed retention and required deletion of all documents and information once turned over to AFS, see Marshak, 595 F.3d at 486 (quoting Roe, 54 F.3d at 137), but the court determining that clarification of the order for purposes of the balance of these proceedings is both necessary and appropriate, and admonishing that any further violation of the stipulated order as clarified herein will expose the party in violation to the full contempt power of this court, it is hereby ORDERED that: