Center for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina

Filing 437

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 433 Order on Motion for Contempt,, Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause, overruling 435 Appeal/Objection of Magistrate Judge Order to District Court, denying 348 Motion for Contempt; denying 240 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 8/30/2021. See attached document for full details. (ls)

Case 1:16-cv-20905-WPD Document 437 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 16-20905-CIV-DIMITROULEAS
CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS,
vs.

Plaintiff,

Magistrate Judge Becerra

IRINA CHEVALDINA,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Omnibus Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Contempt and Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause (the “Report”) [DE 433] and
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Order [DE 433] Dated August 10, 2021 (“Plaintiff’s Objections”)
[DE 435]. The Court will construe the Magistrate Judge’s Order as a Report and
Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE
432] and Plaintiff’s Objections [DE 435] and otherwise fully advised in the premises.
A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United
States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the
portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the
specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be
sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784
(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific
objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de

Case 1:16-cv-20905-WPD Document 437 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 2 of 4

novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at
783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x
at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the
record and the Objections.
After presiding over a nearly two-hour hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Holding
Defendant in Contempt [DE 348] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why
Defendant Should Not be Held in Contempt for Fabrication of Evidence and Fraud Upon the
Court [DE 240], Magistrate Judge Becerra recommends that the motions be denied.
Defendant objects first objects to Magistrate Judge Becerra’s choice to issue an order
denying the motions rather than entering a report and recommendation. Without determining that
Magistrate Judge Becerra was incorrect to enter an order rather than a report and
recommendation, the Court will construe her order as a report and recommendation and review
such de novo.
Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Objections and having reviewed the arguments,
case law, and evidence presented, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with the
analysis and conclusions set forth in Magistrate Judge Becerra’s well-reasoned Report.
In its Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff takes issue with multiple
portions of the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. First, Plaintiff appears to contend that the
Magistrate Judge gave too much weight to Defendant’s pro se status. Second, Plaintiff takes
issue with Magistrate Judge Becerra’s reasoning that the motion for an order to show cause
“should be denied in its entirety because a finding that Defendant engaged in fabrication would
have no substantive effect on the proceedings before the Court. The exhibit at issue was the

Case 1:16-cv-20905-WPD Document 437 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 3 of 4

foundation for Defendant’s DPPA Counterclaim for which the District court already granted
summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.” Plaintiff believes that this reasoning is inconsistent
with the Eleventh Circuit’s mandate.
As to the Motion for an Order Holding Defendant in Contempt the Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Becerra’s reasoning that the Motion should be denied because “the suggestion
that Defendant be held in criminal contempt for failure to provide information that she is no
longer required to produce is rejected as excessive.” Order 12, [DE 433]. The weight given to
Defendant’s pro se status would not alter this Court’s finding that holding Defendant being held
in criminal contempt in the present context would be excessive and a waste of judicial resources.
As to the Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not be Held in
Contempt for Fabrication of Evidence and Fraud Upon the Court, the Court similarly agrees with
Magistrate Judge Becerra’s findings that further sanctions of Defendant would be excessive and
a waste of judicial resources given the evidence thus presented of fraud, the posture of the case,
and Defendant’s pro se status. Such reasoning does not appear to conflict with the Eleventh
Circuit’s holding that the sanctions issues were not merely moot upon the entrance of a final
judgment in this case.
I.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [DE 433] is hereby APPROVED;
2. The Objections [DE 435] are OVERRULED;
3. Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Holding Defendant in Contempt [DE 348] is
DENIED

Case 1:16-cv-20905-WPD Document 437 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2021 Page 4 of 4

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not be Held
in Contempt for Fabrication of Evidence and Fraud Upon the Court [DE 240] is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida,
this 30th day of August, 2021.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of record