Unknown Parties et al v. Johnson et al
ORDERED that the parties shall not file in this closed case, except and unless necessary to secure compliance with the Permanent Injunction, the Judgment, or any Order of the Court. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 11/18/2020. (ARC)
Case 4:15-cv-00250-DCB Document 518 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Unknown Parties, et al.,
Kirstjen M Nielsen, et al.,
On September 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Report Regarding Apparent
NonCompliance with Permanent Injunction (Doc. 507). On September 23, 2020, the
Defendants filed a Response explaining that the referenced “apparent noncompliance” in
large part occurred prior to the July 16, 2020, effective date of the Permanent Injunction,
and were caused due to incomplete e3DM data, pending upgrades being made to comply
with the Permanent Injunction. Additionally, three exigent circumstances caused facilities
to be closed for deep cleaning due to COVID-19 outbreaks on May 30-31, June 14-15, and
June 29-30. The Defendants note that Plaintiffs did not seek to meet and confer prior to
filing the Report of Noncompliance, but gave Defendants a week to add their position to
the Report. Instead, Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 512).
This case is closed. Judgment was entered on February 19, 2020, (Doc. 483), and
subsequently, the Court entered the Permanent Injunction, (Doc 494). The Court retained
jurisdiction over the case to enforce its Orders, including the Permanent Injunction and
Judgment. (Order (Doc. 494). As noted by the Defendants, the Court allowed time to
comply with the Permanent Injunction until July 16, 2020. The Defendants were instructed
to file status reports until compliance was attained. On July 15, 2020, the Defendants filed
Case 4:15-cv-00250-DCB Document 518 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 2
the Final Status Report, reporting full compliance. Nothing was filed by the Plaintiffs until
the September 11, 2020, Report Regarding Apparent Noncompliance with the Permanent
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
the Court’s limited jurisdiction, which it has retained.
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
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
on the moving party to show by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnor violated
a specific and definite order of the court. Id.; In Re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th
Cir.2002)). Violation of a court order is shown by the party's “failure to take all reasonable
steps within the party's power to comply.” In Re Bennett, 298 F.3d at 1069.
Until or unless the Plaintiffs seek to invoke this Court’s enforcement powers, this
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).
Under the circumstances, the Court does not take any action in response to the Report
Regarding Apparent NonCompliance with Permanent Injunction (Doc. 507).
IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall not file in this closed case, except and unless
necessary to secure compliance with the Permanent Injunction, the Judgment, or any Order
of the Court.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2020.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?