Filed: May 31, 2016
Latest Update: May 31, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS AND OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT (Doc. 56) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for an Order of Contempt and Request for Sanctions Against Roger Clark and Plaintiffs' Counsel for a Violation of a Protective Order. (Doc. 56). The Court reviewed Plaintiffs' Opposition (Doc. 78), as well as the Defendants' Reply. (Doc. 84). The hearing on the motion was converted to an Order to Show Cause Hea
Summary: ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS AND OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT (Doc. 56) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for an Order of Contempt and Request for Sanctions Against Roger Clark and Plaintiffs' Counsel for a Violation of a Protective Order. (Doc. 56). The Court reviewed Plaintiffs' Opposition (Doc. 78), as well as the Defendants' Reply. (Doc. 84). The hearing on the motion was converted to an Order to Show Cause Hear..
More
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS AND OSC HEARING RE: CONTEMPT
(Doc. 56)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for an Order of Contempt and Request for Sanctions Against Roger Clark and Plaintiffs' Counsel for a Violation of a Protective Order. (Doc. 56). The Court reviewed Plaintiffs' Opposition (Doc. 78), as well as the Defendants' Reply. (Doc. 84).
The hearing on the motion was converted to an Order to Show Cause Hearing re: Contempt on May 27, 2016. (Doc. 87). Plaintiffs' counsel waived the right to an evidentiary hearing and submitted based on arguments made during the hearing and in the pleadings.
"Civil contempt . . . consists of a party's disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party's power to comply." In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993). A party asserting contempt for violation of a court order must establish that the accused party "`(1) [] violated the court order, (2) beyond substantial compliance, (3) not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the order, (4) by clear and convincing evidence.'" Labor/Cnty. Strategy Ctr. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d at 695). "A contemnor in violation of a court order may avoid a finding of contempt only by a showing that it took all reasonable steps to comply with the order." Kelly et al, v. Wengler et al., No. 13-35972, slip op. at 15, (9th Cir. May 23, 2016). A party may also be held liable for knowingly aiding and abetting another to violate a court order. Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, 774 F.3d 935, 945 (2014) citing Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9, 14, 65 S.Ct. 478 (1945). Although there is no per se "good faith" exception, the Ninth Circuit has held that a person should not be held in contempt if his action appears to be based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the court's order. Institute of Cetacean Research, 774 F. 3d at 953; In re Dual-Deck Video, 10 F.3d at 695.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court holds Mr. Roger Clark and the law firm of Morrison Foerster, LLP in contempt for a violation of the protective order in Enriquez v. City of Fresno, USDC Case No. 1:10-cv-00581 AWI-BAM ("Enriquez Case") (Doc. 28). Because the Court finds that Roger Clark has willfully disobeyed a court order, and Morrison Foerster, LLP has aided and abetted his violation, this Court has authority to impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent authority. Under its inherent powers, a court may impose sanctions where a party has willfully disobeyed a court order. See, Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court has broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings as part of its inherent authority. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. 982 F.2d at 368. Furthermore, a court may assess attorney's fees as a sanction for the "willful disobedience of a court order." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. at 43.
Accordingly, Defendants' request for sanctions (Doc. 56) is granted IN PART as follows:
1) All matters admitted into evidence and information garnered from the Enriquez case, as well as the verdict in the Enriquez case, shall be excluded. Information and evidence that was produced in this case, but was not used in the Enriquez case, is permitted;
2) Mr. Clark will be permitted as an expert witness, however, he shall not testify regarding any of the cases or materials used in the Enriquez trial;
3) Morrison and Foerster and Roger Clark are both sanctioned in the amount of the reasonable attorney's fees to compensate Defendants for prosecuting this motion. Liability for payment will be joint and several. Defense counsel submitted a declaration on May 31, 2016 (Doc. 88), indicating that attorney's fees related to filing this motion was $6,956.00. Any opposition to the amount of attorney's fees requested shall be filed no later than June 8, 2016; and
4) The request for payment of costs and fees related to the taking of Mr. Clark's deposition is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
