O'Beirne v. Stafford

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 PAUL O’BEIRNE, 8 NO. C15-1330RSL Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 TROY STAFFORD, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff Paul O’Beirne’s Motion for Order to 15 Show Cause.” Dkt. # 57. On January 28, 2019, the Court ordered defendant to contact plaintiff’s 16 counsel, appear for a deposition, and produce documents. Defendant was advised “that his 17 failure to comply with this order, appear for his deposition, and produce the requested 18 documents may result in a finding of contempt of Court against him, and may subject him to 19 20 severe sanctions, up to and including arrest.” Dkt. # 53 at 1-2. 21 Plaintiff has provided evidence that defendant failed to comply with the Court’s order and 22 seeks an order requiring defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be held in 23 contempt. 24 There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance 25 with their lawful orders through civil contempt. . . . And it is essential that courts 26 be able to compel the appearance and testimony of witnesses. . . . Where contempt 27 consists of a refusal to obey a court order to testify at any stage in judicial 1 proceedings, the witness may be confined until compliance. The conditional nature 2 of the imprisonment - based entirely upon the contemnor’s continued defiance - justifies holding civil contempt proceedings absent the safeguards of indictment 3 and jury, . . . provided that the usual due process requirements are met. 4 5 Shillitani v. U.S., 384 U.S. 364, 370-71 (1966) (internal footnotes and citations omitted). 6 Contempt sanctions “designed to compel future compliance with a court order” are considered 7 civil in nature and “may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an 8 opportunity to be heard.” Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 9 827 (1994). While due process does not require a full-blown evidentiary hearing before finding a 10 party in civil contempt, the Ninth Circuit does “not encourage the imposition of contempt 11 12 sanctions ‘on the papers.’” U.S. v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 995-96 (9th Cir. 1999). 13 Although the evidence of defendant’s contempt is uncontested on the current record,1 the 14 Court will offer defendant one last opportunity to comply with the Court’s prior order and to 15 show cause why he should not be held in contempt of Court. Defendant is therefore ORDERED 16 to appear on Friday, November 1, 2019, at 9:00 am in the United States District Courthouse 17 at 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington, Courtroom 15106 and show cause why he should not 18 19 be found in contempt. Defendant shall be prepared to sit for his deposition and produce the 20 requested documents at that time. If defendant fails to appear as ordered on November 1, 2019, 21 at 9:00 am, a bench warrant for his arrest will be issued. Upon his arrest, defendant will be 22 brought before the Court to address the civil contempt issue. If the Court is not immediately 23 available to conduct a contempt hearing following defendant’s arrest, defendant shall be 24 25 1 The party alleging civil contempt has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence 26 that the alleged contemnor violated a specific and definite court order by failing to take all reasonable steps within its power to comply. See In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 27 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). 1 incarcerated until such time as the Court can conduct a civil contempt hearing. 2 The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on defendant at the following 3 addresses: 4 15560 N. Frank Lloyd Wright 9439 E. Trailside View 5 Suite B4-299 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 6 7 tstafford4@icloud.com troy@gscapital.us 8 9 Dated this 27th day of September, 2019. 10 A 11 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27