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