Meredith v. Wang

Opinion

F11.ED 2020 JUN L4 J:L12

SUPER IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM OF GUA

DAVID MEREDITH, Superior Court Case No. DM0435-18

Plaintiff,

VS. DECISION AND ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR YUCHEN JESSICA WANG, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendant.

Defendant Yuchen Jessica Wang asks the Court to hold Plaintiff David Meredith in

contempt for failing to produce discovery matters that the Court’s December 4, 2019 Decision

and Order ordered him to produce. She alleges that Meredith has failed to disclose the following:

correspondence between Meredith and his tax preparer; proper closing statements and

correspondence between Meredith and his closing agent; correspondence between Meredith and

five bank accounts requesting relevant financial statements; and, responses to interrogatories 16

and 20.’

A party can be found guilty of contempt of court when they disobey “any lawful

judgment, order, or process of the court.” 7 GCA § 34101. Under Guam law, a court must find by

clear and convincing evidence that there is (1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3)

ability to comply with the order, and (4) a willful failure to comply with the order. Rodriguez v.

‘Wang also requests that the Court clarify that Meredith must disclose his 201$ tax return. During the Motion Hearing, Meredith stated he would disclose his 2018 tax return to Wang, so the Court does not address the request here. DM0435-18 DECISIO AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR ORDER TO OW CAUSE Page 2

Rodriguez, 2003 Guam 8 ¶ 15. Meredith does not dispute prongs one through three, so the Court

proceeds to examine whether he willfully failed to comply with the Court’s order.

Willfulness is traditionally considered an “essential element of the offense” of contempt.

People of Guam v. Torres, 200$ Guam 26 ¶ 5. However, “a good faith belief that a party’s

interpretation of the support order is correct may prevent a finding of willfulness for purposes of

establishing contempt.” Lamb v. Hoffman, 200$ Guam 2 ¶ 52. A party acts in “good faith” when

they take “all reasonable steps within [their] power to comply with the court’s order.” Landmark

Legal Found. v. E.PA., 272 F. $upp. 2d 70, 78 (D.D.C. 2003).

During the hearing, the Court DENIED Wang’s first and second requests for Meredith to

disclose his correspondence with his tax preparer and closing agent because Meredith produced

his tax returns for the requested years and his ATLA closing statements, thereby complying with

the general thrust of the Court’s order. The tax statements also contain statements from

Meredith’s tax preparers, indicating their reliability.

As for Wang’s remaining requests, the Court finds Meredith did not willfully fail to

disclose his correspondence with several banking institutions or respond to Wang’s

interrogatories because he had a good faith belief that he was complying with the Court’s order.

He argues he did not provide correspondence with two E-Trade accounts and a NatWest account

because he believes Wang is a joint account holder of those accounts. He similarly argues that he

responded to Wang’s interrogatory requests in his deposition. Wang opposes both arguments,

contending that she does not have access to those accounts and that although Meredith may have

responded in his deposition to some of the questions in her interrogatories, he did not respond to

the interrogatories themselves. DM0435-18 DECISIOND ORDER RE MOTION FOR ORDER T(OW CAUSE Page 3

These contentions do not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Meredith willfully

failed to comply with the Court’s order. Therefore, the Court does not hold Meredith in contempt

of Court. However, it now expressly orders that Meredith respond to Wang’s interrogatories

under Rule 33’s procedures and that he disclose any relevant financial documents from the two

E-Trade accounts and NatWest account to Wang.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Wang’s Motion and does not hold Meredith in

contempt.

SO ORDERED this 4th day of June 2020.

HON.LYZE M. IRIARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam

Appearing Attorneys: Vanessa Williams, Esq., for Plaintiff David Meredith Daniel J. Bennan, Esq., Berman, O’Connor & Mann, for Defendant Yuchen Jessica Wang