Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-mc-00055/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-mc-00055-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT SMITH, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:10-mc-55-JAM-EFB 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN RE 

CIVIL CONTEMPT 

 This matter was before the court on March 11, 2015, for hearing on plaintiff Entrepreneur 

Media Inc.’s motion for an order to show cause in re contempt as to defendant Scott Smith. ECF 

No. 170.1

 Attorneys David Cook and Ryan Dahm appeared on behalf of plaintiff; attorney Eric 

Mewes appeared on behalf of defendant. Smith was ordered to produce documents relevant to 

the location of his assets. He has failed to comply with the order, and EMI now seeks an order to 

show cause as to civil contempt. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc. (“EMI”) filed this action to enforce a judgment entered 

in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against defendant Scott 

///// 

 1

 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 

302(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 15
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

Smith in 2003 for trademark infringement.2 EMI registered the judgment in this court and 

commenced these collection proceedings. ECF No. 2. Since the registration of the judgment in 

2010, there have been several motions and hearings which, in short, culminated in an order that 

Smith produce documents necessary to complete the taking of a judgment debtor examination as 

to his assets. ECF No. 162. To say that Smith has not cooperated is an understatement.3

Smith was first ordered to appear for a judgment debtor exam by an order entered on 

September 10, 2010. Yet, as detailed below, it took multiple filings, continuances, hearings, and 

admonishments for him to submit to such an examination, and his current failure to comply with 

the order to produce documents has prevented the completion of that examination. Smith has 

benefited from several extensions, has received multiple continuances, and has been warned as to 

the consequences of not complying with the court’s orders.4

 EMI now seeks enforcement through 

the court’s contempt powers. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Smith be 

ordered to appear before the district judge and show cause why he should not be incarcerated 

until he complies with the court’s order. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Throughout these proceedings, EMI and Smith have filed numerous motions in which 

EMI has sought to obtain, and Smith has sought to prevent, access to evidence of and control over 

Smith’s assets. EMI initially sought appointment of a receiver to sell certain domain names 

 2

 The judgment was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ECF 

No. 2 at 7. 

 3

 Although these findings and recommendation focus on Smith’s disobedience with the 

court’s order to produce documents and information, EMI is not blameless in the delay that has 

occurred in this case. The level of acrimony between Smith and EMI’s counsel has taken on the 

character of an internecine feud. The multiplicity of filings by both parties has only obscured the 

issues that need to be resolved. 

4 See ECF Nos. 40 (resetting the exam for May 18, 2011); 61 (continuing the exam to July 

20, 2011); 72 (continuing the exam to October 19, 2011); 85 (granting EMI’s request to continue 

the exam, ECF No. 83, and resetting it for November 30, 2011); 96 & 97 (formal minutes and 

subsequent written order denying Smith’s request to again continue the exam and ordering that it 

proceed immediately after the November 30 hearing on various motions); 106 at 8-11 

(admonishing Smith as to prior delays and ordering the exam to proceed); and 121 (setting 

continuation of the debtor exam for October 17, 2012). 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 15
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

owned and/or controlled by Smith.5 ECF No. No. 24. It also served a third party subpoena on 

Chase Bank. EMI also sought an order requiring Smith to appear for a judgment debtor 

examination, which was granted and Smith was ordered to appear for an examination on May 18, 

2011. ECF No. 40. 

The court instructed the parties to complete the debtor exam (i.e., the deposition of Smith 

as to the existence and location of his assets) prior to addressing the various collection remedies 

requested by EMI. ECF Nos. 61, 64 at 6 (transcript of hearing noting concern that “no debtor’s 

exam was ever done of Smith to explore other methods of execution of [ ] satisfaction of the 

judgment.”); see also 106 at 3. 

Smith responded to the order to appear at a debtor exam with a motion to stay this 

proceeding pending a bankruptcy appeal and with a motion for temporary restraining order. He 

argued that efforts to enforce the underlying judgment should be stayed pending his appeal before 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over the question of whether the judgment should 

have been discharged in bankruptcy. ECF Nos. 52, 53. Those motions were heard and denied on 

May 4, 2011, and the parties were ordered to proceed with the debtor exam set for May 18. ECF 

Nos. 61, 64 at 34. 

Smith on that same day filed a motion to continue the debtor examination for a period of 

60 days. He also requested that the deadline for producing documents be similarly extended. 

ECF No. 60. He argued that the extension was needed because the document requests required 

him to “pour through over seven (7) years of financial statements, bank records, and countless 

personal records . . . .” Id. at 3. He further stated that he was “trying to find legal representation 

to assist him in responding.” Id. In light of that representation and the expectation that with 

assistance of counsel the new deadline would be met, he was granted an additional 60 days to 

produce the documents and the debtor examination was continued to July 20, 2011.6

 ECF No. 61. 

 5

 Smith, proceeding pro se at the time, moved to quash that subpoena claiming that it 

sought information related to a credit card account of his girlfriend, Karen Mix, not himself. ECF 

No. 29. The request for a receiver was denied as premature. ECF No. 61. 

6

 The order also denied EMI’s motion to appoint a receiver and Smith’s motion for a stay. 

In light of the postponement of the debtor exam, hearing on Smith and Mix’s motions to quash 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 15
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

This accommodation did not yield the expected result. 

 EMI had also served a third party subpoena on Bank of America seeking documents 

evidencing assets of Smith. Smith moved to quash that subpoena, ECF No. 65, and also filed a 

second motion to extend time to produce documents and to appear for the judgment debtor 

examination. ECF No. 67. He claimed that good cause supported his request for a variety of 

reasons, including: (1) the attorney he believed would be able to assist him at the judgment debtor 

examination “has contracted pneumonia and is apparently extremely ill” and that Smith was 

“unable to adequately determine when and if the attorney will still be able to assist [Smith] or if 

[Smith] will need to obtain alternative legal assistance, and [he] may not know for several 

weeks”; (2) “[a] significant number of [Smith’s] documents and computer records may be 

unavailable until [he] can complete the time-consuming and expensive task of updating or trying 

to replace several computer applications that are incompatible with Apple’s current operating 

system”; (3) Smith “recently received a Jury Summons to serve as a trial juror” and when he 

“called the Court to discuss possible scheduling conflicts, [he] was advised to appear at 

Sacramento Superior Court by 8:00 a.m. Monday, July 18, 2011 to Thursday, July 21, 2011, or 

until [he is] dismissed as a juror or [is] selected to serve as a trial juror”; and (4) allowing EMI to 

conduct the judgment debtor examination before the Court can rule on Smith’s motion to quash 

and motion for sanctions could have the effect of mooting issues in that motion. Id. at 2-3. 

 Smith’s articulated reasons were, for the most part, unpersuasive. However, in light of his 

representation of a sudden illness of his counsel, he was again permitted additional time. ECF 

No. 72. Smith was cautioned as to further delays and the debtor examination was reset for 

October 19, 2011. Smith was granted an additional 90 days to produce documents and was 

ordered to appear for the exam as rescheduled. 

 Prior to the rescheduled exam, EMI filed a motion for assignment of rights, a restraining 

order, and turnover order, and noticed that motion for hearing on October 26, 2011. ECF No. 79. 

///// 

 

the subpoena, for a protective order, and for sanctions was continued to August 24, 2011. Id. 61. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 15
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

EMI then requested that the debtor examination and the October 26, 2011 hearing be continued to 

October 19, 2011 (notwithstanding the court’s direction that the examination be completed prior 

to consideration of the various collection remedies). ECF No. 83. The continuance was granted 

and the judgment debtor examination was reset for November 30, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. 

Consideration of the motion for assignment of rights, a restraining order, and turnover order was 

deferred until after the debtor exam.7 ECF No. 85. 

 Shortly after the court granted the requested continuance, EMI also filed a motion for a 

pre-filing screening order that would require all filings by Smith to be reviewed by the court 

before they were filed. ECF No. 87. Then, on November 29, 2011, Smith filed a motion for a 

continuance of his judgment debtor exam. ECF No. 92. That same day, EMI filed an application 

for an order to show cause why a permanent pre-filing order should not be issued as to Smith, and 

an opposition to Smith’s request for an extension of time. ECF Nos. 93, 94. The court heard and 

denied those motions on November 30, 2011 and directed the judgment debtor exam to go 

forward that day as scheduled. ECF Nos. 96, 97. 

After the November 30 debtor exam, EMI filed a notice on January 10, 2012, that the 

Ninth Circuit had affirmed a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s judgment that Smith’s debt to EMI 

was nondischargeable. ECF No. 107. Smith, as became his routine, responded by filing another 

request for a continuance, ECF No. 108; this time for a continuance of EMI’s various motions for 

an assignment of rights and a turnover and restraining order, ECF No. 79. Smith claimed in the 

request that he found an attorney to represent him and needed time to prepare an opposition in 

light of the Ninth Circuit ruling. ECF No. 108. Based on that representation, the hearing for 

EMI’s motions was continued to March 7, 2012. ECF No. 109. EMI’s motions were heard and 

denied on March 7, during which the court expressed its concern that EMI was seeking an 

assignment of rights but had not adequately identified the specific source of money to be 

///// 

 7

 Those motions were reset for hearing on December 21, 2011. The order also set a 

revised briefing schedule and continued hearing on Smith and third party Mix’s motions to quash 

the Chase Bank subpoena to that same date. ECF No. 85. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 5 of 15
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 

6

assigned, thereby preventing an application of the Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708.501 factors.8 ECF 

Nos. 113, 114 at 11 (citing Garden City Boxing Cub, Inc. v. Briano, 2007 WL 4463264 (E.D. 

Cal) (Ishii, J.)). The denial of EMI’s motions was without prejudice to renewal if EMI could 

establish through further discovery the information necessary to conduct a proper § 708.501 

analysis. ECF No. 114 at 11-12. 

 Thereafter, EMI filed (prematurely) another motion to appoint a receiver of Smith’s 

domain names, ECF No. 115, and also sought an order for Smith’s appearance at a further 

judgment debtor exam. ECF No. 117. Smith was ordered to appear on October 17, 2012, for that 

examination. ECF No. 121. But Smith sought numerous continuances. On September 26, 2012, 

he requested a 90 day continuance. ECF No. 122. This time he represented to the court that 

“[t]he attorney Smith reasonably believed would be assisting him to properly research and oppose 

EMI’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver, very recently informed Smith that she will NOT be 

able to due to several recent and significant changes in her personal and professional life.” Id. at 

2. Smith added that he was able to find a new attorney “who has agreed to come on board” and 

identified the attorney as Eric Mewes. However, Smith also added that Mr. Mewes “recently had 

major surgery and is on doctor’s orders to ‘lay low’ for several months.” Id. In light of those 

representations, the examination was continued to January 16, 2013. ECF No. 124. But on 

January 2 Smith sought a second continuance claiming attorney Mewes needed additional time to 

prepare because he was recovering from surgery. ECF 125. Smith was granted another 

continuance and the judgement debtor examination and the hearing on EMI’s motion for 

appointment of a receiver were continued to April 17, 2013. 

 Not surprisingly, on March 27, 2013, Smith filed yet another motion for a 90-day 

continuance. ECF No. 128. This time Smith claimed that the extension was necessary because 

he “has been diagnosed with a serious and painful medical condition that is physically preventing 

him from being able to properly prepare for or attend [the judgment debtor examination], and 

 8

 It was this concern that prompted EMI to conduct further document discovery so that it 

could question Smith further as to documents bearing on his assets as they relate to the § 708.501 

factors. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 6 of 15
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 

7

from being able to properly maintain a continuous and close working relationship with his 

attorney, Eric Mewes.” Id. at 2. Smith stated that Mewes “has been diligently working on 

Smith’s case, but because he is new on this complicated case that involves numerous issues and 

has roots dating back over 15 years, Mewes must frequently rely on Smith to be able to quickly 

provide information and documents that only Smith can provide.” Id. at 4. Smith said “due to 

[his] current medical condition, he has been unable to timely provide Mewes with the information 

and documents that Mewes needs to properly represent Smith in this proceeding.” Id. at 4-5. 

Contrary to those representations, however, Mr. Mewes filed shortly thereafter (on April 2, 2013) 

a notice of Substitution of Attorney, ECF No. 129, and an opposition to the motion to appoint a 

receiver for Smith’s domain names, ECF No. 130. Accordingly, the request for continuance was 

denied as moot. ECF No. 133 at 3. The order expressly stated that the April 17, 2013 judgment 

debtor examination remains on calendar. Id. 

 On April 17, 2013, Smith failed to appear for the examination. He had been ordered to 

appear on that date at 9:30 a.m. His counsel, Mr. Mewes, and counsel for EMI, Mr. Cook, were 

present and waited. The court held a hearing at 10:15 a.m. regarding Smith’s absence. Mewes 

informed the court that he had spoken with Smith by phone at 9:57 a.m. Smith reported in that 

call that he was having problems with kidney stones but was on his way and would be arriving for 

the examination by 11:00 a.m.9 At Smith’s counsel request, both counsel were instructed to wait 

until Smith arrived at 11:00 a.m.10

 9

 THE COURT: Well, right now I’m looking at an order that expressly denied the 

request to continue this debtor’s exam that was set for today and -- 

MR. MEWES: I understand that, and my argument doesn’t go to that at all. 

THE COURT: All right. Well, what’s the status with Mr. Smith and his presence? 

MR. MEWES: He told me he’s hopping in his car and he’s getting here as of 9:57 

within the hour, quote/unquote. 

THE COURT: And is he here yet? 

MR. MEWES: No, he’s not here, yet, Your Honor. 

 Transcript at ECF No. 138 at 3. 

10 Smith’s counsel was instructed that Smith would be ordered to show cause why he 

should not bear the cost of the deposition reporter’s time spent waiting as well as the time 

expended by EMI’s counsel. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 7 of 15
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 

8

 Smith did not arrive at 11:00 a.m. and as of 11:20 a.m. was still not present. The case was 

recalled at that time. Smith still was not present. After discussion, counsel were released and, 

Smith was ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear for his 

examination, including paying the cost of the reporter and EMI’s attorney’s fees. ECF Nos. 135, 

138 at 7-10. Smith’s judgment debtor examination was reset for June 5, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. Id. at 

3. 

 Smith and his counsel each responded to the order to show cause, arguing that sanctions 

were inappropriate because: (1) this court has no jurisdiction to rule on post-trial 

supplemental/ancillary matters such as the imposition of sanctions in the instance case, absent 

express written consent of all parties (arguing that Eastern District of California Local Rules 

302(c)(11) and (21) are invalid); (2) the court should not have denied Smith’s earlier (and third) 

request for a continuance of the judgment debtor examination; and (3) Smith did not fail to appear 

on April 17, and he should not be sanctioned for his late appearance that day due to his serious 

medical condition. ECF Nos. 137, 137-1. 

 Smith, consistent with his established pattern, requested a 45-day continuance of the June 

5 date for hearing on the order to show cause and for the debtor examination, claiming a 

continuance was necessary because he was scheduled to have major back surgery the week of 

June 3, 2013. ECF No. 140; see also ECF No. 141. In light of the allegation of scheduled 

surgery, the show cause hearing and the judgment debtor examination were moved to July 24, 

2013. ECF No. 144. 

Smith appeared on that date with his counsel and was admonished about the repeated 

delays and his failure to appear on April 17, 2013. ECF No. 146 at 3-4. Unchastened, Smith, 

through his counsel, again asked that the debtor exam be continued. Id. at 14. That request was 

denied and the parties were ordered to proceed with the deposition. Id. at 15. Although the 

deposition proceeded, the court’s intervention became necessary due to Smith’s objections to 

questions about whether he had any ownership interest in any websites and how and from what 

sources/accounts he paid his attorney’s fees and the amount paid. Id. at 20, 36. Smith was 

directed to respond to the questions regarding his ownership interest in any website, and then, if 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 8 of 15
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 

9

necessary, provide whatever explanation was necessary to explain his understanding of the 

interest. Id. at 32. Smith’s attorney-client privilege objection as to questions regarding payment 

of attorney’s fees was set for briefing.11 The parties were instructed to proceed with the 

questioning as to other matters, and hearing on the objections as well as the completion of the 

examination of Smith was set for August 28 at 10:00 a.m., and Smith was order to appear on that 

date and time. Id. at 42. 

At EMI’s request, that date was continued to October 2, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. ECF Nos. 

149, 151. In the interim, EMI also filed a motion to compel further production of documents and 

the court set all matters, including the remainder of Smith’s debtor exam, to be heard jointly on 

October 16, 2013. ECF No. 161. At the October 16 hearing, Smith’s counsel confirmed that 

Smith would respond to the questions, ECF No. 164 at 3, and Smith was ordered to answer 

questions as to the source of payment of attorney’s fees and whether his attorney was holding any 

funds for Smith, ECF No. 164 at 5-6. However, Smith did not bring to the courtroom the 

documents sought by EMI’s request for production. Therefore, questioning of Smith as to those 

documents had to be deferred to a future date to be set in the court’s written ruling on the motion 

to compel. ECF No. 164 at 9. 

The court entered its order on November 26, 2013, granting in part the motion to compel 

and ordering Smith to produce documents responsive to requests number 2 through 13.12 ECF 

No. 162 at 3, 7. The order specifically stated that “[w]ithin 21 days of the date of this order, 

defendant shall serve plaintiff with responses to its June 17, 2013 Requests for Production of 

Documents, request numbers 2 through 13, as set forth herein.” Id. at 7. It is Smith’s failure to 

comply with this order that is the subject of the instant motion for an order to show cause. 

 Smith sought reconsideration of the November 26 order by the assigned district judge, 

arguing that the court failed to consider whether EMI complied with Local Rule 251(b)’s meet 

 11 The court cited the parties to Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank, 974 F.2d 

127 (9th Cir. 1992) and instructed them to brief the issue. ECF No. 146 at 38, 40. 

12 The order neglected, however, to set a new date for completion of the debtor exam for 

purposes of questioning Smith about the responsive documents, and that questioning has yet to 

occur. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 9 of 15
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 

10

and confer requirement prior to filing its motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 163. Judge 

Mendez denied that motion on January 13, 2014. ECF No. 165. Smith thereafter filed a notice of 

appeal citing both the November 26 order as well as the order denying his motion for 

reconsideration. ECF No. 166. That appeal was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit for lack of 

jurisdiction.13 ECF No. 169. 

 On December 3, 2014, EMI sought an order to show cause in re contempt due to Smith’s 

failure to comply with the November 26, 2014 order to produce the documents. ECF Nos. 170, 

172. Smith filed his opposition to that request, ECF No. 175, and on February 4, filed a request 

for a 45-day continuance of the hearing on the matter explaining that Mr. Mewes’s (Smith’s 

attorney) father had recently died and Mr. Mewes needed an extension to handle matters 

regarding his father’s estate. ECF No. 177. The hearing was continued to March 11, 2015. ECF 

No. 178. However, a few days before the hearing, on March 9, Smith personally filed a request to 

again continue the hearing for at least 60 days. ECF No. 180. He stated that the additional 

continuance was needed because Mr. Mewes had suffered an unspecified “life threatening 

medical emergency that could require weeks or months of treatment and recovery.” Id. at 4. The 

request was not supported by any documentation of Mr. Mewes’s condition and how it would 

preclude his attendance at the March 11 hearing. Given the history of delays occasioned by 

Smith, the unsupported request was denied. ECF No. 181. 

Despite Smith’s representations of a “life threatening medical emergency,” Mr. Mewes 

appeared at the March 11, 2015 hearing. 

III. EMI’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Setting to the side for the moment the history of noncompliance and obstruction of 

discovery in this judgment enforcement proceeding, the instant motion focuses on Smith’s 

disobedience of the court’s November 26, 2013 order to produce documents. That order 

specifically directed Smith to produce, within 21 days, documents responsive to EMI’s request 

numbers 2 through 13. ECF No. 162 at 7. Smith has failed to provide any valid basis for 

 13 The Ninth Circuit’s mandate was issued on March 3, 2015. ECF No. 179. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 10 of 15
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 

11

disregarding the court’s November 26, 2013 order, and, as explained below, he should now be 

ordered to show cause before the district judge why he should not be incarcerated for civil 

contempt until he complies with the court’s order.14

 Where, as here, a party fails to obey a court order compelling discovery, the court may 

issue sanctions, including “treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an 

order to submit to a physical or mental examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(1)(vii). Civil 

contempt “consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to 

take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. 

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). A sanction for civil contempt is intended to 

coerce the party in contempt to comply with the court’s order in the future, with the sanction 

conditioned on continued noncompliance. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 

F.2d 1468, 1481 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, a party imprisoned for contempt “carries the keys of his 

prison in his own pocket because civil contempt is intended to be remedial by coercing the 

defendant to do what he had refused to do.” Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th 

Cir. 2005). 

“The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the 

contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court.” Federal Trade Comm’n v. 

Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). To establish that civil contempt is 

appropriate, EMI must demonstrate “(1) that [Smith] violated the court order, (2) beyond 

substantial compliance, (3) not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the order, 

(4) by clear and convincing evidence.” United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 694 (9th Cir. 

2010). Once EMI makes this showing, the burden shifts to Smith to demonstrate that he “took all 

reasonable steps within his power to insure compliance with” the court’s order. Hook v. Arizona 

Dept. of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397, 1403 (9th Cir. 1997). 

///// 

 14 EMI has since moved for criminal contempt. That motion will be addressed separately. 

This Order and Findings and Recommendation address only civil contempt for purposes of 

compelling compliance with the order. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 11 of 15
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 

12

 “The choice among the various sanctions rests within the discretion of the district court,” 

United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 617 F.2d 1364, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980), and the 

Ninth Circuit “defer[s] considerably to the judgment of the district court in fashioning the 

appropriate sentence because of its proximity to the events out of which contempt springs.” 

United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). However, a “district court should 

apply the least coercive sanction (e.g., a monetary penalty) reasonably calculated to win 

compliance with its orders.” Id. 

 As recounted above, Smith has disobeyed a discovery order entered by a magistrate judge. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii), where a party’s conduct “constitutes a civil contempt, 

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 of the facts so certified.” At the 

hearing, “[t]he district judge shall thereupon 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 the district judge.”15 Id. 

 The court finds that Smith has willfully disobeyed the court’s order that he produce 

documents delineated in the court’s order docketed on November 26, 2013, ECF No. 162 at 3-4 

and 7 (ordering production of documents response to requests “2 through 13.”). Thus, Smith was 

ordered to produce: 

2. Any and all statements of account(s) of any type or nature, of the 

account with PayPal, Bank of America, and/or any and all other 

financial institutions, or any one of the same, no matter where 

located, for the years of 2010 to date hereof (“TIME PERIOD”). 

The statement of account(s) shall include copies of all deposits and 

receipts, copies of all checks as paid therefrom, wire transfers, 

credit card entries, credit card disbursements, and all other items 

that appear thereunder. 

 15 Although § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii) makes reference to “punishment” the section prescribes a 

certification procedure for both civil and criminal contempt. As noted above, these findings and 

recommendation apply only to civil contempt for purposes of compelling Smith’s compliance 

with the order. Here, incarceration--if it becomes necessary--is not for purposes of punishment 

but for coercing compliance. Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d at 1110. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 12 of 15
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 

13

3. Any and all books, letters, papers, files, or documents 

(“DOCUMENTS”) which show any wire transfer, electronic 

distribution and/or transmission of funds, purchase of debit cards, 

acquisition and use of any online digital banking services, such as 

Bitcoin, and/or any and all other papers which show any account in 

YOUR name, and moreover, any account by any entity, including 

any digital entity, for the TIME PERIOD. 

4. Any and all statements of account(s) by any and all credit card 

companies, including American Express, VISA, MasterCard, or any 

financial institution issuing any credit card, whether under the name 

of AmeriCard, or otherwise. 

5. Any and all credit cards issued by Discover Card, or the like, for 

statements of the TIME PERIOD. These include the entire 

statements and copies of any ancillary transfers thereunder. 

6. Any and all email communications of any type or nature, by and 

between YOURSELF and PayPal, Bank of America, or any other 

person holding an account for YOURSELF for the TIME PERIOD. 

7. Any and all records of any type or nature, including email 

transmissions, by and between YOURSELF and GoDaddy. This 

includes, but is not limited to, all applications, any domain names, 

all contracts, agreements, and other memoranda, by and between 

YOURSELF and GoDaddy. 

8. Any and all DOCUMENTS which show any written 

communications by and between YOURSELF and GoDaddy, and 

communications with third parties which provide for the sale, 

directly or indirectly, of domain names. 

9. Any and all DOCUMENTS which indicate the sale, directly or 

indirectly, of domain names, or any type of digital track which 

show the receipt of money arising out of the sale of domain names, 

or the like, for the TIME PERIOD. 

10. Any and all DOCUMENTS which evidence the receipt of any 

income from January 1, 2011 to date hereof. 

11. Any and all DOCUMENTS which reflect any transactions in 

which SMITH received income, by cash, barter, property, 

exchange, or the rendition of services for and on his behalf, as 

income revenue, profits or proceeds. 

12. Any and all emails with any person seeking to solicit business 

of any type or nature for the TIME PERIOD. 

13. Any and all DOCUMENTS which constitute a list of all 

domain names in YOUR name, or any nominee, assignee, 

transferee, or third party who holds the domain names for and on 

behalf of and for the benefit of YOURSELF. This includes any 

domain names that were once in YOUR name and that YOU 

 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 13 of 15
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 

14

transferred to any other entity who holds those domain names on 

YOUR behalf, including all transfers to any entity under the control 

of GoDaddy, or any of its subsidiaries of affiliates. 

ECF No. 162 at 3-4. 

The order sufficiently describes the document to be produced. It clearly ordered Smith to 

do so by a fixed deadline, i.e. within 21 days of the date of the order. Id. at 7. At the March 11 

hearing on this motion, Smith’s counsel conceded that his client had not yet produced any 

responsive documents. Indeed, he stated that his client was in the process of gathering the 

documents, although no justification was given for why he had not done so prior to the date that 

they were due; this despite the fact that the discovery order was issued approximately 16 months 

prior to the hearing. Counsel also claimed that he brought to the hearing documents that were 

responsive to some of the discovery requests. Those documents, which were subsequently filed 

with the court, consist of little more than a few carbon copies of deposit slips, a letter from Bank 

of America to EMI’s counsel, and a list of domain names purportedly owned by Smith. ECF No. 

183. They fall far short of the financial documents Smith was ordered to produce. See ECF No. 

162. Counsel, acknowledging the deficiency of the documents brought to the hearing, further 

represented that Smith could fully comply with the court’s November 26 order if given as little as 

10 extra days. Far more than 10 days have now passed. To no surprise, there has been no 

indication that Smith has complied with the court’s order. 

Further, the court finds that a lesser sanction than resort to the court’s powers of civil 

contempt would have no impact on Smith’s recalcitrance. As recounted above, this judgment 

enforcement proceeding was initiated in this district to enforce a 2003 judgment rendered against 

Smith. Smith’s conduct throughout has been a pattern of stall tactics and evasive behavior. Over 

the course of approximately five years, he has sought a continuance of virtually every matter 

before this court in his attempt to evade discovery of his assets and delay or avoidance entirely of 

payment of the judgment. Notwithstanding his having received the benefit of the doubt on many 

of the continuances, Smith persist in trying the court’s patience with more delays and then 

ignoring repeated admonishments as to noncompliance. In light of his conduct, there is no reason 

to believe that monetary sanctions will coerce compliance. Simply adding additional dollars to 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 14 of 15
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 

15

the judgment (exceeding $682,156) that he continues to avoid creates no incentive to comply with 

the order that he provide documents which will disclose his assets. 

Accordingly, EMI’s motion for an order to show cause should be granted and Smith 

should be directed to be appear before the Judge Mendez to show cause why he should not be 

incarcerated for civil contempt until he complies with the court’s order. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that defendant Scott Smith be ordered to 

appear before Judge Mendez, at a date and time to be set by Judge Mendez, to show cause why 

Smith should not be found in civil contempt and incarcerated until he fully complies with the 

court’s November 26, 2013 order. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: June 22, 2015. 

Case 2:10-mc-00055-JAM-EFB Document 196 Filed 06/22/15 Page 15 of 15