EEOC v. ABM Janitorial Services, Inc.

Filing 309

ORDER DENYING Request to Advance Hearing on Civil Contempt re 308 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/25/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)
)
)
Plaintiff.
)
)
ERIKA MORALES, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiff-Intervenors
)
v.
)
)
ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01428 - LJO - JLT
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO ADVANCE
HEARING ON CIVIL CONTEMPT
(Doc. 308)

18
On July 1, 2013, the Court ordered Intervenors’ attorneys to show cause why sanctions for

19
20

contempt of court should not be issued due to their “willfully violating the protective orders issued on

21

January 14, 2009 (Doc. 76), February 18, 2010 (Doc. 175) and March 4, 2010 (Doc. 193); to wit,

22

filing and using discovery documents contrary to one or more of the Court’s protective orders, in the

23

action entitled Murillo v. ABM Industries Incorporated, et al., Fresno County Superior Court, case

24

number 11 CE CG 04428.”1 (Doc. 207) This hearing is set to occur on September 5, 2013. Id.

25

Now before the Court is Defendants’ request that the hearing be advanced, apparently to

26

prevent Intervenors’ counsel from further violating the protective order by using protected documents

27
28

1

It is alleged that the materials exposed to public view were filed on this Court’s docket by another party who may have
violated the protective order in doing so. If this is the justification for the actions of Intervenors’ counsel, seemingly,
counsel take the position that the breach by another party nullifies the Court’s protective orders; emphatically, this is not
so.

1

at trial in the state court action. However, because civil contempt proceedings carry with them the

2

possible sanction of incarceration, the alleged contemnors are entitled to sufficient time to retain

3

counsel and/or to prepare for the hearing. Moreover, though the Court continues to expect strict

4

compliance with its orders, including all terms of every protective order issued in this case, the

5

manner in which the state court judicial officer conducts the state court action, is not within this

6

Court’s authority to question. However, the Court will consider each and every breach of its

7

orders when evaluating whether contempt sanctions—up to and including incarceration—

8

should be imposed.
ORDER

9
10
11

Based upon the foregoing, the request to advance the hearing on the civil contempt (Doc. 308)
is DENIED.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 25, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE