Cathexis Ventures, LP et al v. mIQroTech, Inc. et al
Filing
177
ORDER: The 176 Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 1/28/2025. (KMP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CATHEXIS VENTURES, LP, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 8:21-cv-2823-KKM-TGW
MIQROTECH, INC., and
MEADE LEWIS
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
“[W]hen considering a motion to terminate a civil contempt order, ‘the district court
must make an individualized determination as to whether there exists a realistic possibility
that the contemnor will [comply].’ ”Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Wellington
Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F.2d 1525, 1530–31 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (alteration in
the original) (quoting In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 877 F.2d 849, 850 (11th Cir. 1989)
(per curiam)). ?e contemnor must “prove that no such realistic possibility exists.” Id. at
1530–31 (quoting Simkin v. United States, 715 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1983)). Until then, a
court may hold the contemnor in custody “[a]s long as the judge is satis?ed that the coercive
sanction might yet produce its intended result.” Id. (quoting Simkin, 715 F.2d at 37).1
Defendant Meade Lewis seeks his immediate release from custody. Mot. for Release
(Doc. 176). But Lewis has not purged his civil contempt by providing all the ordered
discovery, nor has he shown that he cannot comply. Lewis’s motion proves as much.
First, Lewis concedes facts that establish he has not purged, representing that his
counsel is “in the process of viewing and producing” documents, Mot. for Release ¶ 4, and
“will continue to supplement document production to plainti?s[’] counsel,” id. ¶ 5. Lewis
also explains additional discovery that he anticipates producing, such as subpoenaed
?nancial records. Id. ¶ 2. ?at the collection and production of the documents requires time
does not purge Lewis of the contempt. Production purges the contempt.
Second, Lewis began producing the ordered discovery almost as soon as he was held
in custody. At the hearing last week, counsel admitted that Lewis ?nally appreciates the
gravity of the situation and intends on complying. Until that time, Lewis ignored with
impunity multiple court orders spanning nearly a year. I am thus “satis?ed that the coercive
sanction might yet produce its intended result.” See Wellington Precious Metals, 950 F.2d
Because I have already held Lewis in contempt, (Doc. 148), the defense of “inability”—that Lewis has “in
good faith [made] all reasonable e?orts to comply”— no longer governs. Chairs v. Burgess, 143 F.3d 1432,
1437 (11th Cir. 1998).
1
2
at 1530–31 (quoting Simkin, 715 F.2d at 37). As a result, Lewis’s emergency motion is
DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 28, 2025.
3
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?