Advanced Laboratories International, LLC v. Valentus, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Nonparty Jayr Viens Datu appear before the the court to Show Cause Hearing why the production of books, papers, records, and other data demanded in the subject Subpoena should not be compelled set for 9/25/2017 01:30 PM before Judge Otis D. Wright II. (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

ADVANCED LABORATORIES

11

Case No. 2:17-MC- 00106-ODW(RAO)

INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

VALENTUS INTERNATIONAL;

15

DAVE JORDAN; and DOES 1–20,

16

inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18

_______________________________

19

VALENTUS, INC. and DAVID

20

JORDAN;
Counterclaimants,

21
22

v.

23
24

ADVANCED LABORATORY

25

INTERNATIONAL, LLC; VITAE

26

GLOBAL, LLC; and LOUIS VOLPE;

27
28

Counterdefendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

Pending before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimant Valentus’ Application

2

for an Order to Show Cause why nonparty Jayr Viens Datu should not be held in

3

contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena to produce documents

4

(“Application”). (Appl., ECF No. 1.) This Court has jurisdiction to review this

5

Application pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(f), because the designated

6

place for production of documents and compliance with the Subpoena is in Los

7

Angeles. The underlying action is pending in the United States District Court for the

8

Eastern District of California, and is entitled Advanced Laboratories International,

9

LLC v. Valentus International, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00141-TLN-CMK. After

10

reviewing the Application and supporting Declaration (Campbell Decl., ECF No. 1-2),

11

the Court GRANTS the Application.

12

I.

Background

13

Valentus markets and sells a coffee product referred to as SlimRoast through a

14

network of independent distributors who are compensated based on their sales and

15

from their referrals of new distributors. (Appl. 3:11-15, ECF No. 1.) In or about

16

March 2016, Valentus and its former manufacturer, Advanced Laboratories

17

International, LLC (“Advanced Labs”) entered an agreement for the purchase of bulk

18

amounts of coffee. (Appl. 3:21, ECF No. 1.) During the course of manufacturing and

19

packaging product for Valentus, Advanced Labs allegedly manufactured large

20

quantities of excess SlimRoast without authorization, and sold it at “drastically

21

reduced prices.” (Id at 4.) Valentus further alleges that Advanced Labs’ owner, Louis

22

Volpe, began manufacturing a competing product and sought to induce Valentus’

23

distributors to leave Valentus and join their new competing company, Vitae Global,

24

LLC. (Id.)

25

Advanced Labs filed suit against Valentus on December 21, 2016, contending

26

that Valentus breached the parties’ agreement when Valentus refused shipment of any

27

further deliveries of bulk coffee from Advanced Labs. (Advanced Labs Int’l, LLC v.

28

Valentus Int’l, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00141-TLN-CMK, Compl. ¶11, ECF No. 1.) In its

2

1

Answer, Valentus filed a Counterclaim against Advanced Labs, asserting various

2

counterclaims, including trademark infringement, false association, trafficking in

3

counterfeit marks, associated RICO violations, and tortious interference. (Appl.)

4

Valentus states that nonparty Jayr Viens Datu is an important witness to this action

5

because Mr. Datu was one of the initial distributors to leave Valuntus and become a

6

distributor with Vitae Global. (Appl. 2.) Mr. Datu was personally served a Subpoena

7

to Produce Documents at his residence in Lakewood, California on April 24, 2017,

8

and was obligated to comply with the Subpoena on May 25, 2017 at a location in

9

Beverly Hills. (ECF No. 1.) Mr. Datu has not responded to the Subpoena nor has he

10

produced any documents. (Campbell Decl. ¶14.) Since the missed deadline for

11

compliance, Valentus has attempted to confer with Mr. Datu, including attempts via

12

overnight mail, email, and telephone. (Campbell Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8, 9, 10.)

13

II.

Legal Standard

14

Under Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii), a subpoena “command[s] each person to whom it

15

is directed to do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify;

16

produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in

17

that person's possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises.”

18

Under Rule 45(g), the Court “may hold in contempt a person who, having been

19

served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.”

20

The party moving for civil contempt must prove that the alleged contemnor violated a

21

court order by clear and convincing evidence. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Affordable

22

Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999).

23

contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” Fed. Trade Comm'n v.

24

Enforma Natural Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004). “Civil contempt

25

is characterized by the court’s desire to compel obedience with a court order, or to

26

compensate the contemnor's adversary for the injuries which result from the non-

27

compliance.” Martinez v. City of Pittsburg, C 11–01017 SBA LB, 2012 WL 699462,

28

at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012).

3

“The burden then shifts to the

Rule 45(g) was added with the 2013 Amendment to Rule 45. The Advisory

1
2

Committee Notes regarding 45(g) note that:

3

In civil litigation, it would be rare for a court to use contempt

4

sanctions without first ordering compliance with a subpoena, and the

5

order might not require all the compliance sought by the subpoena.

6

Often contempt proceedings will be initiated by an order to show

7

cause, and an order to comply or be held in contempt may modify

8

the subpoena's command. Disobedience of such an order may be

9

treated as contempt.

10

Advisory Committee Notes on Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (2013); see also Martinez, 2012 WL

11

699462, at *3 \ (granting party's application for order to show cause why a non-party

12

should not be held in contempt but finding sanctions premature).

13

III.

Application

14

Based on the facts set forth in Valentus’ Application and supporting

15

Declaration, the Court finds that the Subpoena was valid and properly served. Mr.

16

Datu has failed to respond, despite numerous good faith attempts by Valentus to

17

obtain the requested discovery without court action.
Accordingly, Valentus’ Application for an Order to Show Cause is

18
19

GRANTED.

20

IV.

Order

21

IT IS ORDERED that nonparty Jayr Viens Datu appear before this District

22

Court of the United States for the Central District of California, at the following date,

23

time, and address, to show cause why the production of books, papers, records, and

24

other data demanded in the subject Subpoena should not be compelled:

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

4

1

Date:

Monday, September 25, 2017

2

Time:

1:30 p.m.

3

Courtroom:

5D

4

Address:

First Street Courthouse

5

350 W. 1st Street

6

Los Angeles, CA 90012

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

September 14, 2017

10
11
12

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5