Harsco Corporation v. Mui et al

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 7 Motion for Contempt (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HARSCO CORPORATION, d/b/a
HARSCO INDUSTRIAL AIR-X-CHANGERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KENNETH MUI and CHART COOLER
SERVICE COMPANY, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-449-JED-FHM

Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt Citation, [Dkt. 7], which was filed in state court before
the case was removed, is before the court for decision. The motion has been fully briefed.
Plaintiff claims Defendant Mui failed to comply with an order of the state court that
required Defendant Mui to produce four specified external storage devices. Defendant Mui
responded that he produced one of the devices but does not have the other three devices.
Plaintiff seeks an evidentiary hearing before the court where Defendant Mui would be
required to prove why he has not produced the other three devices.
The undersigned is not persuaded that contempt proceedings, including an
evidentiary hearing, is the best way to proceed at this point. Instead, Plaintiff should utilize
the discovery process to develop a factual record and seek relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 if
warranted.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt Citation, [Dkt. 7], is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2015.