Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01202/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01202-17/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alice Rosas Aguilar
Plaintiff
County of Fresno
Defendant
Ernest Serrano
Defendant

Document Text:

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICE ROSAS AGUILAR, as successor CASE NO. 1: 08-cv-1202 AWI GSA

in interest to Sergio Rosas Aguilar;

ALICE ROJAS AGUILAR, an individual, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOLLOWING OSC RE CONTEMPT 

Plaintiffs AGAINST NON PARTY JOSE MEDINA

vs.

COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On February 4, 2010, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why a Contempt Citation

Should Not Issue (“OSC”) to third party witness Jose Medina based on his failure to appear at four

depositions. (Doc. 90). The OSC ordered that Mr. Medina file a response no later than February 26,

2010. No response was filed. 

 A hearing regarding the OSC was held on March 19, 2010 at 10:00 am. Michael R. Linden

personally appeared on behalf of Defendants, County of Fresno and Fresno Deputy Sheriff Ernesto

Serrano (“Defendants”). Non-party Jose Medina did not appear. The Court issues these Findings

and Recommendations to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(e)(6). 

BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2008, Plaintiff, Alice Rosas Aguilar (“Plaintiff”), filed the instant action in

her individual capacity, and also in her capacity as successor in interest, against Defendants alleging

1

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 100 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 6
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

state and federal law violations. (Doc. 2). This action arises out of the shooting of Plaintiff’s

husband, Sergio Rosas Aguilar (“the Decedent”), by Fresno Deputy Sheriff Ernest Serrano. 

On October 7, 2009, Defendants gave notice that they would take the deposition of Jose

Medina, a witness in this action on October 15, 2009. Declaration of Michael Linden dated

November 4, 2009 at ¶ 2, Exhibit B (Doc. 55-3). At that time, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that

Mr. Medina would appear, however, Mr. Medina did not attend the deposition. Id. On October 27,

2009, Mr. Medina was personally served with a deposition subpoena, but again, did not appear. 

Declaration of Michael Linden dated November 4, 2009 at ¶ 5, Exhibit D (Doc. 55-3). On

November 4, 2009, Defendants filed an application for an OSC for a contempt citation and this

Court set a hearing for December 12, 2009. (Doc. 55). However, this application was withdrawn

because Defendants did not timely serve Mr. Medina with a copy of the court’s order setting the case

for an order to show cause hearing. 

Defendants’ counsel had another conversation with Mr. Medina on November 5, 2009 at

which time Mr. Medina agreed to appear for the deposition. Declaration of Michael Linden dated

February 1, 2010, ¶ 2 (Doc. 84-6). On November 13, 2009, Mr. Medina was personally served with

another subpoena requiring him to appear at a deposition set for November 19, 2009. See,

Declaration of James Weakley dated February 1, 2010 at ¶ 2, Exhibit A (Doc. 84-3). Mr. Medina

informed Defendants’ process server that he would be at the deposition. See, Declaration of Doug

Stokes dated February 1, 2010 at ¶ 2, Exhibit A (Doc. 84-4). Mr. Medina did not appear for his

November 19, 2009 deposition, nor did he provide an explanation for his failure to appear. 

Declaration of James Weakley dated 1, 2010, ¶ 2, Exhibit A (Doc. 84-3). 

On January 11, 2010, a third subpoena was personally served on Mr. Medina for a deposition

on January 20, 2010. Mr. Medina again told Defendants’ process server that he would be at the

deposition. See, Declaration of Doug Stokes dated February 1, 2010 at ¶ 3, Exhibit B (Doc. 84-4). 

However, once again, Mr. Medina did not appear for his deposition, nor did he contact counsel to

advise that he was unable to appear. See, Declaration of Rosemary McGuire dated February 1, 2010

¶ 2, Exhibit A (Doc. 84-5). As a result of Mr. Medina’s non-compliance, Defendants filed the

instant application for an OSC Why a Contempt Citation Should Not Issue . (Doc. 84). Pursuant to

2

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 100 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 6
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

this Court’s order, Defendants personally served Mr. Medina with the Court’s OSC on February 6,

2010. (Doc. 91).

On March 19, 2010, defendants’ counsel appeared at the scheduled hearing. Notwithstanding

the personal service of the order requiring him to appear before the Court and advising him of the

potential contempt citation to be issued, Mr. Medina again failed to appear or otherwise contact the

Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

A subpoena shall “command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony

or to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, documents or tangible things

in the possession, custody or control of that person.” F.R.Civ.P. 45 (a)(1)( iii). The issuing court

may hold a person in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena F.R.Civ.P. 45(e) “Even though

subpoenas are issued by attorneys, they are issued on behalf of the Court and should be treated as

orders of the Court.” Higginbotham v. KCS Int'l, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 444, 455 (D.Md.2001) (citing

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 45(a)(1991 amend.) (“Although the subpoena is in a sense the

command of the attorney who completes the form, defiance of a subpoena is nevertheless an act of

defiance of a court order and exposes the defiant witness to contempt sanctions”)); Halawani v.

Wolfenbarger, No. 07-15483, 2008 WL 5188813, *7 (E.D.Mich. Dec.10, 2008). (same).

A civil contempt sanction is designed to force the contemnors to comply with an

order of the court and thus to affect discovery. Cunningham v. Hamilton County, Ohio, 527

U.S. 198, 207 (1999). Civil contempt in this context 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. Courts have inherent power to enforce their orders through civil contempt.

See Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990) (citing Shillitani v. United States,

384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966)). Civil contempt is characterized

by the court’s desire to compel obedience with a court order, or to compensate the

contemnor’s adversary for the injuries which result from the non-compliance. 

FalstaffBrewing Corp., v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F. 2d 778 (9th Cir. 1983). A district

court has wide latitude in determining whether there has been a contemptuous defiance of

3

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 100 Filed 03/23/10 Page 3 of 6
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

one of its orders. Stone v. City of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir.1992).

 Failure of the responding party to file a responsive pleading to an OSC why a

contempt citation should not issue may warrant a finding that the applicant’s allegations are

uncontested as a matter of law. See Rogers v. Webster 776 F.2d 607, 611 (9 Cir. 1985) th. 

The responding party is entitled to a hearing on the OSC where, unless waived, live

testimony must be taken or an opportunity afforded to cross examine the declarants. See

Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 495 (9 Cir. 1983) th. However,

where the affidavits offered in support of a finding of contempt are uncontroverted, a full

evidentiary hearing is not essential to due process and the trial court may treat the facts set

forth in the uncontroverted affidavits as true. See Peterson v. Highland Music, 140 F.3d

1313, 1324 (9 Cir. 1998) th. Without an issue of material fact, the district court is only

required to give notice and an opportunity to be heard. See United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d

991, 996 (9 Cir. 1999) th. 

"The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled: 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.” FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 F. 3d 1228, 1239

(9 Cir. 1999) th. Once the moving party meets this standard, the burden shifts to the

contemnor to demonstrate that he or she took every reasonable step to comply, and to

articulate reasons why compliance was not possible. See Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d

1226, 1240 (9th Cir.1983). To assess whether an alleged contemnor has taken “every

reasonable step” to comply with the terms of a court order, the district court can consider (1)

a history of noncompliance, and (2) a failure to comply despite the pendency of a contempt

motion. See Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856-57 (9 Cir. th

1992). A party's subjective intent and willfullness is irrelevant. See McComb v. Jacksonville

Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949); Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d at 1240. Thus, the

disobedient party's good faith or intent in attempting to comply does not bar a finding of

contempt. See Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d at 857. If, however, “a

defendant's action ‘appears to be based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of (the

4

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 100 Filed 03/23/10 Page 4 of 6
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

court's order),’ he should not be held in contempt.” Vertex Distributing v. Falcon Foam

Plastics, 689 F.2d at 889 (quoting Rinehart v. Brewer, 483 F.Supp. 165, 171 (S.D.Iowa

1980)). 

Sanctions for civil contempt are imposed to coerce compliance with a court order, to

compensate the party pursuing contempt for injuries resulting from the contemptuous behavior,

or both. United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947).

“Generally, theminimum sanction necessaryto obtain compliance is to be imposed.” Whittaker

Corp v. Execuair Corp., 953 F. 2d 510, 517 (9 Cir. 1992) thciting, Spallone v. United States, 493

U.S. 265, 280, 110 S. Ct. 625 (1990). Where the purpose of the contempt order is to ensure a

party’s compliance, the court must “consider the character and magnitude of the harm

threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction

in bringing about the result desired.” Bademyan v. Receivable Management Services

Corporation, No. CV-08-00519, 2009 WL 605789 (C.D. Cal. March 9, 2009) citing Whittaker

Corp v. Execuair Corp., 953 F. 2d at 516. 

ANALYSIS 

Mr. Medina was personally served with an Order to Show Cause Why a Contempt

Citation Should Not Issue. The OSC was a specific and definite order which gave notice of

the time, date, and location of the hearing, however, Mr. Medina failed to appear or

otherwise contact the court. Mr. Medina was also personally served with three separate

deposition subpoenas to which he has failed to comply. Mr. Medina has repeatedly ignored

the orders of this Court and has failed to offer any excuse or justification for his noncompliance. The court must therefore assume that the allegations in Defendants’ application

for contempt citation and supporting declarations are true and further that Mr. Medina has

willfully disregarded the orders of this Court. Defendants have met their burden of showing

by clear and convincing evidence that Medina violated a specific and definite order of the

court. Because Mr. Medina has not participated in this proceedings, the least restrictive

sanction that will ensure compliance with the Court’s orders is to issue a contempt citation

against him. 

5

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 100 Filed 03/23/10 Page 5 of 6
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

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Medina be found in civil

contempt and a civil contempt citation be ISSUED against him for failure to appear at the

March 19, 2010 hearing. The court furtherRECOMMENDS that a bench warrant be issued for

the arrest of Jose Medina to compel his appearance before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, his

compliance with the deposition subpeonas, and any other penalty the Court may deem

appropriate.

The United States Marshal is ordered to personally serve these Findings and

Recommendations forthwith on Jose Medina at the following address: 

340 North Clark Avenue #A

Fresno, California 93701

If Mr. Medina is not located at the above address, an alternate address for personal

service is: 

174 North “U” Street, 

Fresno, California 93701

 

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

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

days after beingserved with these findings and recommendations, Jose Medina, mayfile 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." The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time maywaive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 23, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

cf0di0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 1:08-cv-01202-OWW -GSA Document 100 Filed 03/23/10 Page 6 of 6