Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00910/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00910-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Mark E. Baroody,

Respondent. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-910-PHX-ROS (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for Order to Show

Cause and for Report and Recommendation Certifying Facts Regarding Civil Contempt.

(docket # 29) 

I. Background

On March 27, 2008, the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District

Judge, held Respondent Mark E. Baroody in indirect, civil contempt of court for failure to

provide documents and information identified in an IRS summons. (dockets # 13-14) That

same day, the District Judge issued a warrant for Mr. Baroody’s arrest. On May 9, 2008, Mr.

Baroody was arrested and appeared before the undersigned for an initial appearance on the

civil arrest warrant. (dockets # 16, 19) The undersigned ordered Mr. Baroody detained until

he purged himself of the civil contempt order by providing the documents and deposition the

IRS sought. (docket # 16) A week later, on May 16, 2008, the undersigned conducted a

Case 2:08-cv-00910-ROS Document 31 Filed 06/12/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

status hearing regarding Mr. Baroody’s efforts, if any, to purge his civil contempt of court.

(docket # 20) Thereafter, on May 20, 2008, Mr. Baroody was deposed by the Government

and, by that time, had provided full consent to the IRS to obtain any of the documents that

the IRS sought which may have been partially located in the residence where Mr. Baroody

was residing at the time of his arrest. (docket # 21) Mr. Baroody also executed consent forms

allowing the IRS to obtain most, if not all, of the documents the IRS sought from the banks

and other institutions where such documents may be located. After fully complying with the

IRS’ requests up to that point in time and assuring the Court and counsel of his full

cooperation with the IRS in the future, Mr. Baroody was released from custody with

conditions including that he “appear at all proceedings as required,” “immediately advise the

court, defense counsel, and the U.S. Attorney in writing of change in address/telephone

number,” and “maintain weekly contact with his . . . counsel by Friday, noon of each week.”

(dockets ## 23-24) 

On the day of his release and thereafter, the Government made clear that it

requested a continuation of Mr. Baroody’s deposition to June 5, 2008 to enable the

Government to review documents which Mr. Baroody had recently provided and those

obtained via his consent which it did not have at the time of his deposition. (docket # 22) On

May 22, 2008, the undersigned ordered Mr. Baroody to conclude his testimony on June 5,

2008. (docket # 26) 

In the pending motion, filed on June 6, 2008, the Government advises that Mr.

Baroody failed to appear for his June 5, 2008 deposition in violation of the Court’s orders.

Additionally, Mr. Baroody has violated the specific conditions of release. Specifically, Mr.

Baroody has not advised either his counsel or the Government’s counsel of his new address

and telephone number following his release from custody, failed to appear for a proceeding

(his follow-up deposition) on June 5, 2008, and has had no contact with either the

Government or his court-appointed counsel since May 22, 2008. 

///

///

Case 2:08-cv-00910-ROS Document 31 Filed 06/12/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

II. Civil Contempt/Certification of Facts

In view of Mr. Baroody’s violation of his conditions of release and continued

failure to provide complete testimony in a follow-up deposition, the Government seeks a

Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6) certifying the

foregoing facts to the assigned District Judge and requests an order requiring Mr. Baroody

to appear before the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge, to show cause

why he should not be held in civil contempt by reason of the facts certified herein. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) provides that upon the commission of any act that

“constitutes civil contempt” in a proceeding referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge

and may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior is brought into

question under this paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a district

judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not be adjudged in contempt

by reason the facts so certified.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6). 

The undersigned set this matter for a hearing on June 11, 2008 at 4:15 p.m.

for Mr. Baroody to show cause why the undersigned should not recommend that Petitioner

be held in civil contempt in an Report and Recommendation to the assigned District Judge.

(docket # 30) Jeffery Williams, Mr. Baroody’s court-appointed attorney appeared, but Mr.

Baroody did not. Mr. Williams advised the Court that he has had no recent contact with Mr.

Baroody and that he does not know his whereabouts. 

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6), the undersigned

certifies the following facts which support a finding that Mr. Baroody should be held in

indirect, civil contempt: (1) Mr. Baroody has violated his conditions of release by failing to

advise the court, the U.S. attorney, and his counsel in writing of his change of address and

telephone number, see docket # 24; (2) Mr. Baroody has violated his conditions of release

by failing to appear on June 5, 2008 for his follow-up deposition, see docket # 24; (3) Mr.

Baroody has violated his conditions of release by failing to maintain weekly contact with

his counsel, see docket # 24; (4) Mr. Baroody’s failure to appear for his June 5, 2008

Case 2:08-cv-00910-ROS Document 31 Filed 06/12/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

deposition also violated the undersigned’s verbal order of May 22, 2008 made in open court,

see dockets ## 26-28; (5) by failing to conclude his testimony in a follow-up deposition, Mr.

Baroody has violated the IRS’ summons and the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver’s December 6,

2007 Order enforcing that summons, see docket # 10; and (6) Mr. Baroody violated the

undersigned’s June 9, 2008 Order to Show Cause, docket # 30, by failing to appear for the

June 11, 2008 hearing before the undersigned. 

Based on the foregoing facts, the undersigned recommends that the assigned

District Judge, the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, order Mark E. Baroody to appear on a date

certain to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt by reason of the facts

certified herein. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6),

the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver order Respondent Mark E. Baroody to appear upon a day and

time certain to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt by reason of the facts

so certified. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6). 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00910-ROS Document 31 Filed 06/12/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge=s recommendation. See, Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 11th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00910-ROS Document 31 Filed 06/12/08 Page 5 of 5