Unknown Parties v. Wolf

Opinion

1 WO 2 3

7 Unknown Parties, et al., No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER

9 v.

10 Kirstjen M Nielsen, et al.,

11 Defendants. 12 13 On September 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Report Regarding Apparent 14 NonCompliance with Permanent Injunction (Doc. 507). On September 23, 2020, the 15 Defendants filed a Response explaining that the referenced “apparent noncompliance” in 16 large part occurred prior to the July 16, 2020, effective date of the Permanent Injunction, 17 and were caused due to incomplete e3DM data, pending upgrades being made to comply 18 with the Permanent Injunction. Additionally, three exigent circumstances caused facilities 19 to be closed for deep cleaning due to COVID-19 outbreaks on May 30-31, June 14-15, and 20 June 29-30. The Defendants note that Plaintiffs did not seek to meet and confer prior to 21 filing the Report of Noncompliance, but gave Defendants a week to add their position to 22 the Report. Instead, Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 512). 23 This case is closed. Judgment was entered on February 19, 2020, (Doc. 483), and 24 subsequently, the Court entered the Permanent Injunction, (Doc 494). The Court retained 25 jurisdiction over the case to enforce its Orders, including the Permanent Injunction and 26 Judgment. (Order (Doc. 494). As noted by the Defendants, the Court allowed time to 27 comply with the Permanent Injunction until July 16, 2020. The Defendants were instructed 28 to file status reports until compliance was attained. On July 15, 2020, the Defendants filed 1 the Final Status Report, reporting full compliance. Nothing was filed by the Plaintiffs until 2 the September 11, 2020, Report Regarding Apparent Noncompliance with the Permanent 3 Injunction (Doc. 507). The Plaintiffs did not Reply to the Defendants’ explanations for the alleged noncompliance. The Report was not accompanied by a motion to compel invoking 5 the Court’s limited jurisdiction, which it has retained. 6 It is well established that the Court has “inherent power to enforce compliance with [its] lawful orders through civil contempt.” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, (1966). Additionally, Fed.R.Civ.P. 70(e) provides that, “[t]he court may also hold a 9 disobedient party in contempt.” “The standard for holding a party in civil contempt is well settled.” F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1999). The burden is 11 onthe moving party to show by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnor violated a specific and definite order of the court. Jd.; In Re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th 13 Cuir.2002)). Violation of a court order is shown by the party's “failure to take all reasonable 14] steps within the party's power to comply.” Jn Re Bennett, 298 F.3d at 1069. 15 Until or unless the Plaintiffs seek to invoke this Court’s enforcement powers, this 16] case is closed and filing reports in it is not appropriate because “[a] final judgment may be reopened only in narrow circumstances.” Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 440 (2011). 18 Under the circumstances, the Court does not take any action in response to the Report Regarding Apparent NonCompliance with Permanent Injunction (Doc. 507). 20 Accordingly, 21 IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall not file in this closed case, except and unless 22 necessary to secure compliance with the Permanent Injunction, the Judgment, or any Order 23 of the Court. 24 Dated this 18th day of November, 2020. 25 26 27 = +— 28 United Ct Judge

-2-