Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Prinzo
Filing
115
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant, Phillip Prinzo, shall have forty (40) days to furnish the Court with Medical Reports from his physician or physicians for filing as a "Restricted Document." Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/17/2018 (ECW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC.
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-73-DCB-MTP
PHILLIP PRINZO
DEFENDANT
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on the plaintiff Ronaldo
Designer
Jewelry,
Inc.
(“Ronaldo”)’s
Motion
for
Additional
Sanctions Against the defendant Phillip Prinzo (“Prinzo”)(docket
entry 110), filed January 22, 2018.
The Court previously found
Prinzo in contempt of Court, and imposed sanctions against him.
Ronaldo alleged that “monetary sanctions and all other sanctions
are insufficient,” in this case, and asked the Court to enter
more stringent sanctions against Prinzo, up to and including
incarceration, until he purges himself of contempt.
The Court required Prinzo to show cause, if any, for his
failure
to
respond,
and
to
show
why
sanctions,
incarceration, should not be imposed against him.
including
Prinzo was
further warned that failure to respond to the Court’s Order could
result in additional sanctions against him, as requested by the
plaintiff.
Prinzo was previously sanctioned in the amount of $1,447,31
for his failure to attend the settlement conference, and was
ordered
to
appear
for
his
continued
deposition,
respond
to
discovery requests, and produce the records identified in Exhibit
“A” to the Amended Notice to Take Deposition (docket entry 46-1).
Prinzo has continuously failed to pay to Ronaldo the sum of
$1,447.31 in sanctions.
Prinzo has also failed to otherwise
comply, and has yet to produce the records identified in Exhibit
“A” to the Amended Notice to Take Deposition (docket entry 46-1)
as ordered in prior Orders (docket entries 74 and 93) and this
Court’s Judgment and Order (docket entry 109).
Prinzo has not
only ignored court orders since the inception of this case, but
has also ignored sanctions imposed by the Court thus far, clearly
demonstrating
that
monetary
and
other
sanctions
sufficient and do not have a deterrent effect.
are
not
Since Prinzo has
shown that such monetary and other sanctions are insufficient,
Ronaldo has asked the Court to enter additional, more stringent
sanctions, such as incarceration, until Prinzo purges himself of
contempt.
In its Judgment and Order (docket entry 109), the Court
expressly reserved the right to impose additional sanctions or a
finding of criminal contempt, if warranted, in the event Prinzo
failed
to
purge
himself
of
civil
contempt
by
producing
the
records identified in Exhibit “A” to the Amended Notice to Take
Deposition.
Inasmuch as Prinzo continues to refuse to comply
2
with Court orders, and has failed to purge himself of contempt,
the only recourse is for the Court to impose additional sanctions
as reserved in its Judgment and Order (docket entry 109).
Given
that monetary and other sanctions have failed to have a deterrent
effect upon the defendant, Ronaldo asks the Court to exercise its
authority and order Prinzo to be confined until he purges himself
of contempt.
In this Court’s Order of April 23, 2018 (docket entry 113),
the
Court
ordered
that
the
parties
appear
for
a
hearing
on
Ronaldo’s Motion for Additional Sanctions.
On April 28, 2018, Prinzo wrote to the Court advising as to
his physical condition.
was
filed
as
a
On May 16, 2018, a copy of that letter
“Restricted
Document”
(docket
entry
114)
to
protect the privacy of Mr. Prinzo.
Once the plaintiff establishes non-compliance, the burden
shifts to the defendant to show an inability to comply with the
Court’s
Order.
Chicago
Truck
Drivers
v.
Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 504-05 (8th Cir. 2000).
Brotherhood
Labor
A mere asserting
of “present inability” is insufficient to avoid a civil contempt
finding.
An alleged contemnor defending on “inability to comply”
must establish that “(1) [he is] unable to comply, explaining why
‘categorically and in detail;’ [his] inability to comply was not
‘self-induced;’ and (3) he made ‘in good faith all reasonable
3
efforts to comply.’”
Id. at 506.
The Court finds that it does not have sufficient information
before it to decide whether Prinzo is unable to undergo civil
confinement.
Therefore, the Court shall order Prinzo to produce
a Medical Report or Medical Reports from one or more physicians
whom are providing care for him.
These reports must be mailed
directly to the undersigned judge, for filing as a “Restricted
Document” to protect the privacy of Mr. Prinzo.
The defendant
shall have forty (40) days from the date of this Order to furnish
the Court with the Medical Reports.
Failure to do so could
result in additional sanctions.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant, Phillip Prinzo,
shall have forty (40) days to furnish the Court with Medical
Reports
from
his
physician
or
physicians
for
filing
as
a
“Restricted Document.”
Upon receipt of the Medical Reports, the Court will notify
the parties as to further proceedings.
SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of May, 2018.
/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?