United States of America v. McCormick
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The government's Motion to Withdraw Motion for Contempt and Sanctions [Doc. 28 ] is GRANTED, and the government's Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions [Doc. 14 ] is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to defendant. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 2/2/15. (copy mailed to Willard McCormick) (JBR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLARD S. MCCORMICK,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
3:11-CV-114-TAV-CCS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This civil matter is before the Court on the government’s Motion to Withdraw
Motion for Contempt and Sanctions, filed January 27, 2015 [Doc. 28], and the Court’s
Order for defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court,
entered November 17, 2014 [Doc. 25]. In its motion [Doc. 28], the government moves to
withdraw its prior Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions [Doc. 14]. In support, the
government states that defendant has now complied with the post-judgment discovery
order that prompted its Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions.
This case was brought by the United States in order to recover on defendant’s
student loan obligations. A default judgment against defendant was entered on August 8,
2011, in the amount of $66,069.04 [Doc. 8]. On May 7, 2014, the government filed a
motion to compel post-judgment discovery [Doc. 9]. The Court referred the motion to
Magistrate Judge Shirley [Doc. 12], who granted it in relevant part on May 27, 2014
[Doc. 13]. Magistrate Judge Shirley ordered defendant to respond to the post-judgment
discovery that the government had served on him by June 17, 2014 [Id.].
On August 8, 2014, the government moved the Court to hold defendant in
contempt of court and award the government reasonable expenses, including attorney’s
fees, for his alleged continuing failure to comply with the Court’s post-judgment
discovery order [Doc. 14]. The Court referred the government’s motion to Magistrate
Judge Shirley [Doc. 17], who ordered defendant to either provide post-judgment
discovery or appear on October 9, 2014, to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt of court [Doc. 18]. On October 21, 2014, Magistrate Judge Shirley entered a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) certifying to the Court that defendant had not
complied with the Court’s order for him to either provide post-judgment discovery or
appear on October 9, 2014 [Doc. 23]. Magistrate Judge Shirley recommended that
defendant be brought before the Court to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt of court [Id.].
After receiving no objection to the R&R, the Court accepted it in whole on
November 17, 2014, and issued an order for defendant to show cause why he should not
be held in contempt of court [Doc. 25]. The Court ordered the United States Marshal to
personally serve a copy of the show cause order on defendant [id.], and service was
completed on November 28, 2014 [Doc. 26]. Counsel for the government has since filed
an affidavit stating that defendant contacted the United States Attorney’s Office on
December 4, 2014, and arranged to accept the government’s interrogatories and request
2
for production [Doc. 29]. Counsel for the government further states that on December
10, 2014, defendant returned the completed discovery documents to the government [Id.].
Accordingly, the government argues that defendant has now complied with the Court’s
post-judgment discovery order.
The Court has inherent authority to coerce compliance with its orders by virtue of
the civil contempt power. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512
U.S. 821, 827–28 (1994) (discussing the civil contempt power in general); Young v. U.S.
ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 795–96 (1987) (discussing the inherent
authority of federal courts to punish criminal contempt). The Court’s contempt authority
extends to all of its lawful orders. See Young, 481 U.S. at 798.
In order for a court to find a party in civil contempt, “the petitioner must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated the court’s prior order.”
Grace v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 72 F.3d 1236, 1241 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Glover v.
Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 707 (6th Cir. 1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon
such a finding, the court may order an array of remedial sanctions, including issuing a
fine or imprisoning the party. See Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 828–29 (1994). When the party
complies with the order, the civil contempt is purged, and the sanction abates. See id.
In this case, the uncontroverted representations of the government establish that
defendant is currently in compliance with the Court’s post-judgment discovery order.
Therefore, the Court concludes that adequate cause has been shown that defendant is not
currently in contempt of court, in satisfaction of the R&R entered by Magistrate Judge
3
Shirley [Doc. 23] and the Court’s subsequent Order to show cause [Doc. 25].
Accordingly, the government’s Motion to Withdraw Motion for Contempt and Sanctions
[Doc. 28] is GRANTED, and the government’s Motion for Contempt and for Sanctions
[Doc. 14] is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this
Order to defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF 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?