Johnson v. Cooper, et al

Filing 51

CERTIFICATION of Contempt - Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 2/13/2019. (Tripp, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-cv-00679-FL
Robin Johnson,
Plaintiff,
v.

Certification of Contempt

North Carolina Department of Justice,
Defendant.

From a review of the docket, it appears that Senior Deputy Attorney General Amar
Majmundar has ignored the court’s November 7, 2018 Order requiring him to complete four hours
of continuing legal education programs on the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Based on his apparent failure to comply the court’s order, it is appropriate to begin
contempt proceedings against Majmundar.
Federal law sets out the authority of magistrate to address contempt by the parties and
attorneys who appear before them. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e). Although magistrate judges can address
some contempt directly, much of the time the magistrate judge must refer the conduct at issue to a
district judge. In a civil action when the parties have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction
the magistrate judge must certify the underlying facts to a district judge if the act at issue
“constitutes a criminal contempt [that] occurs outside the presence of the magistrate judge” or “the
act constitutes a civil contempt[.]” Id. § 636(e)(6)(B)(ii) & (iii). After certification, the magistrate
judge must cause the order to be served on “upon any person whose behavior is brought into
question” and order that the person “appear before a district judge upon a day certain to show cause
why that person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified.” Id. §

636(e)(6)(B). The district judge must then “hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained
of and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the
same extent as for a contempt committed before a district judge.” Id.
Depending on the nature and purpose of the sanction the court would impose after a finding
of contempt, this proceeding would either entail criminal contempt outside a magistrate judge’s
presence or civil contempt. Given that the parties have not consented to magistrate judge
jurisdiction here, the undersigned must proceed by certifying the underlying facts to the presiding
district judge.
Thus, the undersigned magistrate judge certifies these facts to United States District Judge
Louise W. Flanagan:
1. On November 7, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II issued an
order granting Plaintiff Robin Johnson’s Motion to Compel. D.E. 47.
2. In that order, the court found that NCDOJ’s discovery responses violated Rule 26(g)
because its objections to discovery were not raised “as part of a ‘nonfrivolous argument for
extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law[.]’” Id. at 23
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B)(i)).
3. Because he was the attorney who signed the discovery responses, the court ordered that
Majmundar “must complete 4 hours of continuing legal education programs on the
discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within 90 days.” Id. at 24.
4. The court also ordered Majmundar to file a notice on the docket certifying that he
completed the required CLE hours. Id. at 26.
5. A review of the Notice of Electronic Filing associated with the November 7, 2018 Order
reflects that the CM/ECF system sent a copy of the order by email to both Majmundar and

2

his co-counsel. Thus, Majmundar received notice of the November 7, 2018 Order and its
requirements.
6. Neither NCDOJ nor Majmundar appealed the November 7, 2018 Order.
7. The deadline for Majmundar to comply with the court’s order was February 5, 2019.
8. As of the date of this certification Majmundar has not filed a notice on the docket certifying
that he has completed the required CLE hours, requested additional time to complete the
required CLE hours, or justified his failure to complete the CLE hours by the deadline set
by the court.
Along with filing this certification on the CM/ECF system, the Clerk of Court shall serve
a copy by certified mail, return receipt requested on Majmundar. Majmundar shall appear before
Judge Flanagan at a date and time of her choosing to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt based on the facts set forth in this certification.
Dated: February 13, 2019
Dated:
ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II
______________________________________
UNITEDT.TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Robert S Numbers, II
United States Magistrate Judge

3