Static Media LLC v. Leader Accessories LLC

Filing 91

ORDER denying 86 Motion for Finding of Contempt of Court. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/17/2022. (rks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
STATIC MEDIA LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
18-cv-330-wmc

LEADER ACCESSORIES LLC,
Defendant.
After this court granted summary judgment to defendant Leader Accessories, LLC,
finding that a reasonable jury could not conclude that its stadium seat infringed the design
patent in suit and entered judgment in its favor, plaintiff Static Media LLC filed a motion
for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 on the basis that Leader and its
counsel disclosed Static Media’s confidential information in violation of the protective
order previously entered in this case. (Dkt. #58.) Magistrate Judge Crocker granted the
motion in part (dkt. #65), Leader appealed that decision to this court (dkt. #66), and this
court affirmed the order and directed the parties to brief the amount of the sanction,
leaving to Judge Crocker to set that amount (dkt. #71). Leader then appealed the amount
of the sanction (dkt. #79), which this court denied and affirmed Judge Crocker’s decision
awarding sanctions and reset the deadline for payment to July 26, 2021. (7/1/21 Text
Order (dkt. #81).)
For reasons that are not clear, Leader missed the deadline for payment, prompting
plaintiff to file a motion for a finding of contempt on August 19, 2021. (Dkt. #86.) That
motion, however, secured the attention of Leader and its counsel, and Leader overnighted
the $12,061.50 check to Static Media the next day, August 20, 2021. (Dkt. #89, Ex. B.)

In its reply in support of the motion, Static Media acknowledges the payment but contends
that a finding of contempt and an additional sanction are warranted because Leader offers
no reason for its failure to meet the penalty deadline, let alone a good reason.
While the court agrees that Leader’s failure to pay timely the sanction could serve
as a basis for an additional sanction, the court declines to sanction Leader and its counsel
further. The court’s July 26, 2021, deadline was in a text order, which, while it does not
excuse Leader’s failure to comply by the deadline, may have contributed to Leader’s failure
to meet that deadline. Once it was more clearly brought to Leader’s attention in Static
Media’s motion for contempt, Leader complied promptly.

On this record, the court

concludes that further sanctions are not warranted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Static Media LLC’s motion for contempt (dkt. #86)
is DENIED.
Entered this 17th day of June, 2022.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
_______________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2