T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). T he H onor abl e Phi l l i p S. Fi ga, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he ** D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r20,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

P HONE DI RE CT OR I E S CO M P ANY, IN C ., Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. KE L L Y C L AR K, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; T HE L O C A L PA G E S, I N C . , a U t ah corpor at i on, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . N o. 05- 4257 ( D i s tr i ctof U t ah) ( D . C. N o. 2: 00 - CV - 46 8- TS)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efo re HENR Y, M UR P HY , C i r cui tJ udges , and F I GA , D is tr ic t J u d g e . ** A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i t ho ut or al argum ent. F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (f) ; 10 th C i r. R . 34 . 1(G ). T he case is , th e re fo re , o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.-2-

I . I nt roduct i on Phone D i r ect or i es C om pany , I nc. ( “PD C ”) fi l ed a mot i on foran or der re q u irin g T h e L o c a l P a g e s, In c . an d K e llyC lar k , it s o w n e r a n d p re sid e n t, (c o llec tiv e ly“ T h e L o c a l P a g e s” ) to sh o w c a u se w h yth e ysh o u ld n o t b e h e ld in cont empt of courtforvi ol at i ng a pr evi ous l yent er ed St i pul at ed J udgm ent . T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s tr i ctof U t ah gr ant ed the mot i on and, aft er a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g , e n te re d a n o rd e r o f c o n te m p t a g a in s t T h e L o c a l P a g e s . T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded The L ocal Pages had vi ol at ed fourpr ovi s i ons of the St i pul at ed J udgm ent . T he Local Pages appea l s t hi s or derof cont empt , ar gui ng ( 1) t he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert he or der ; ( 2) t her e w as i ns uffi ci ent evi dence t o s uppor tt he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thatT he Local Pages vi ol at ed t he St i pul at ed J udgm ent ; and ( 3) t he di s tr i ctcourterr oneous l yr ej ect ed The L ocal P a g e s’ d e fe n se o f

su b sta n tial c o m p lian c e . T h is c o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and a ffi r ms th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r o f c o n tem p t. I I . Backg r ound PD C and The L ocal Pages ar e compet i ng publ i s her s of t el ephone d i r e c t o r i e s . Cl a r k i s t h e o wn e ra n d p r e s i d e n to f T h e L o c a l P a g e s . T h e t wo compani es oft en compet e di r ect l yfory el l ow page a dvert i s i ng contr act s i n s ever al ar eas t hr oughoutt he U ni t ed St at es , i ncl udi ng V ernal , U t ah. I n a pr evi ous l aw s ui t , PD C fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai ntagai ns tT he Local Pages , al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of the Lanham A ctunder15 U . S. C . § 1125( a) and other-3-

dece pt i ve bus i nes s pr act i ces . T he cl ai m w as s et t l ed pur s uantt o a Set t l ement A g re e m e n t e n te re d in to b y th e p a rt ie s a n d th e e n tr yo f a S tip u la te d J u d g m e n t. U ndert he St i pul at ed J udgm ent , both part i es w er e enj oi ned fr om engagi ng i n a num berof dec ept i ve bus i nes s pr act i ces . A s r el evantt o thi s appea l , t he part i es w e re e njo in e d f

ro m th e fo llo w in g : 1. Fal s el yr epr es ent i ng t o C us t om er s thatt hey ar e as s oci at ed w i t h , a ffi l i a t e d w i t h , o ri n a n y w a y r e p r e s e n ta C o m p e t i n g E n t i ty. 2 . F a lse lyre p re se n tin g o r d e c e p tiv e ly p a ss in g o ff o r re fe rrin g to th e C o m p e tin g E n tity ’s te lep h o n e d ire c to ry , o r a n yp a rt th e re o f, a s th e ir ow n. 3 . F a lse lyre p re se n tin g to C u sto m e rs th a t th e C o m p e tin g E n tity w i l l no l ongerpubl i s h a t el ephone di r ect or yi n a G eogr aphi cal A r ea. 4. Fal s el y r epr es ent i ng t o C us t om er s that the Par tyis r ep la ci ng t he C om pet i ng E nt i t yas the p u bl i s herof t el ephone di r ect or i es i n a G eogr aphi cal A r ea. St i pul at ed J udgm entat4- 5. T hi s di s put e ar i s es outof the al l eged br eac h of the St i pul at ed J udgm entby T he Local Pages . Forappr oxi m at el yt w entyy ear s , PD C had publ i s hed a t el ephone di r ect or yi n V ernal , U t ah, ent i t l ed the “Basi n Phone D i r ect ory , ” w i t hout c o m p e tit io n f

ro m T h e L o c a l P a g e s. T h e L o c a l P a g e s, h o w e v e r, d e c id e d to publ i s h a compet i ng di r ect or yi n the ar ea a nd began s el l i ng y el l ow page advert i s i ng fori t s di r ect or y . Shor t l yt her eaf t er , PD C fi l ed a mot i on foran or der r equi r i ng T he Local Pages t o s how caus e w hyt heys houl d notbe hel d i n cont empt forvi ol at i ng t he i nj unct i on s etfor th i n the St i pul at ed J udgm ent . PD C al l eged a s al es agentof The L ocal Pages had cont act ed one of PD C ’ s cus t om er s and-4-

c laim e d sh e re p re se n ted B a sin D ire c to rie s, a sk e d to sc h e d u le a n a p p o in tm e n t to re n e w th e c u sto m e r’s a d v e rtise m e n t, an d sta ted sh e w a s th e n e w B a sin D i r ect or i es ’ agent . T he courtgr ant ed the mot i on and hel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng. A tt he evi dent i aryhear i ng, PD C pr es ent ed fourw i tnes s es t o t es t i fy r egar di ng t he al l eged vi ol at i ons . T hes e w i tnes s es al l w or ked forbus i nes s es t hat w er e PD C cus t om er s att he t i m e of the ac t s i n ques t i on. T he w i tnes s es t es t i fi ed T he Local Pages ’ s al es r epr es ent at i ves s t at ed ori m pl i ed theyr epr es ent ed the B asi n D i rect oryand beg an thei r s al es pi t ch b yofferi ng t o renew t he cu st om ers ’ a d v e rtise m e n ts. S p e c ifica lly , the re w a s e v id e n c e th a t o n e re p re se n tativ e , B o n n ie B al l , carr i ed a PD C di r ect or yw i th hert o s al es m eet i ngs , and thatanother re p re se n tativ e fa x e d c o p ies o f a n e x istin g P D C a d to a c u sto m e r in a n e ffo rt to confi r m t he cont entof the new ad. O ne w i tnes s t es t i fi ed B al l fal s el yt ol d her B as i n Phone D i r ect or yw oul d no l ongers ervi ce the ar ea. I n r es pons e, T he Local Pages offe r ed the t es t i m onyof B al l , w ho deni ed s he had ever m ade a fal se st at em ent ori ntended t o d ecei ve P D C ’s cust om ers . Ital so pr es ent ed evi dence of a c om panypol i cy , w hi ch r equi r ed al l empl oy ees t o r ead and agr ee t o compl yw i t h t he St i pul at ed J udgm ent . B al l , how ever , t es t i fi ed s he had notr ead the Set t l ementA gr eementort he St i pul at ed J udgm ent . I n addi t i on, T h e L o c a l P a g e s p re se n ted e v id e n c e o f a C o d e o f

C o n d u c t in its sa les m a n u a l, w hi ch i ncl uded r es t r i ct i ons on act i vi t i es notpr ohi bi t ed byt he St i pul at ed J udgm ent . I tfur t herpr es ent ed evi dence B al l had bee n w arned forvi ol at i ng the-5-

C o d e o f C o n d u c t b yb rin g in g a c o m p e tit o r’s d ire c to ryto sa les m e e tin g s w ith po t enti al cust om ers . Fol l ow i ng t he evi dent i aryhear i ng, the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed an or derof cont empt , concl udi ng PD C had pr oved vi ol at i ons of the St i pul at ed J udgm entby cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence . I tfound The L ocal Pages ’ s al es r epr es ent at i ves had enga ged i n conductt hatvi ol at ed ea ch of the fourpr ovi s i ons of the St i pul at ed J udgm entl i s t ed above . B eca us e i tconcl uded PD C had notpr es ent ed s uffi ci ent evi dence of damages , i taw ar ded PD C onl ycos t s and att orney s ’ fee s i n the amount of $15, 763. 00. T he Local Pages now appea l s t he or derof cont empt and t he o rderaw ardi ng P D C i t s cost s and att orney s’ fees. II I. A n a ly sis A . Juri s di ct i on T hi s cour tm us tfi r s taddr es s T he Local Pages ’ ar gum entt hatt he di s tr i ct cour tdi d nothave j ur i s di ct i on overt he cont empt pr ocee di ngs beca us e PD C fai l ed t o compl yw i t h t he pr ocedur e i n the Set t l ementA gr eementbefor e s eeki ng j udi ci al i nt ervent i on. Pur s uantt o t he Set t l ementA gr eement , t he partyal l egi ng br eac h m us tnot i fyt he otherpart yi n w r i t i ng and al l ow t en bus i nes s day s fort he other par t yt o i nves t i gat e and pr opos e a r emedy . T he A gr eementpr ovi des , “[i ] f the par t i es cannotr es ol ve an a l l eged br eac h [thr ough t hes e means ] , t heym ayt hen s eek c our ti nt ervent i on. ” B eca us e PD C i ni t i al l yfi l ed i t s m ot i on foror dert o s howIn suppo rtof it s ar gu m ent, T he L ocal Pag es ci t es Morris v. C i t y of Hob art , 1 39 F . 3d 11 05 (10t h C i r. 19 94 ), for the p roposi t i on t hat a di stri ctcou rtm ust e x p re s s ly re ta in ju ri s d ic tio n to e n fo rc e a s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t. Mo rr is is i nappos i t e, how ever . T he di s t r i ctcourti n thi s cas e di d notexer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on o v e r th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t, bu t in ste a d e x e rc ise d its in h e re n t p o w e r to enfor ce the t erm s of the St i pul at ed J udgm ent . A s s uch, t he court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on overt he cont empt pr ocee di ng w as pr oper , r egar dl es s of anyexpr es s r et ent i on of ju ri s d ic tio n to e n fo rc e c o m p lia n c e . -6- caus e w i t houtnot i fy i ng T he Local Pages of the al l eged br eac h, T he Local Pages cont ends t he di s t r i ctcourtdi d nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe mot i on. T his cou rtrevi ew s j uri sdi ct i on al qu est i on s de novo . In r e Spec i alG r and Ju ry 8 9 -2 , 450 F. 3d 1159, 1170 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . I n thi s cas e, the courtneed not decide w hetherP D C adeq uatel ycom pli ed w i th the Sett l em ent A greem ent because t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on w as notcont i ngenton the A gr eementorthe par t i es ’ compl i ance w i t h i t s pr ocedur es . I ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed thata courtr et ai ns anci l l aryj ur i s di ct i on overs ubs equentpr ocee di ngs t o enfor ce i t s ow n or der s and ju d g m e n ts . P eacoc k v. Thom as , 516 U . S. 349, 356 ( 1996) . “W i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o enfor ce a j udgm entent er ed bya fe der al court , the j udi ci al pow erw oul d be i ncompl et e and e nt i r el yi nadequa t e t o the purpos es forw hi ch i tw as confe rr ed by t he C ons t i tut i on. ” Id
. B eca us e the cont empt or derw as bas ed s ol el yon vi ol at i ons of the i nj unct i on s etfor t h i n t he St i pul at ed J udgm ent , the di s tr i ctcour thad juri sd ict ion , ind ep en d en t o f an y p rov isi o n s in a p ri v ate ag ree m en t. T h u s, P D C ’s 1Si gni fi cant l y , t he St i pul at ed J udgm entdi d noti ncorpor at e the pr ocedur al 2 p ro v isio n s o f

th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t. T h u s, if T h e L o c a l P a g e s h a s a c laim a g a in st P D C a t all, itis o n e fo r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t, w h ich it h a s n o t p ro p e rly ra is e d o n a p p e a l. See Consum ers G as & O i l, Inc. v. Far m land Indus
. , Inc. , 84 F .3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (“ S tan d in g a lo n e , a s e ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t is n o thing m o re tha n a c o n tr ac t . . . . ”). -7- al l eged fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h t he Set t l ementA gr eementcoul d notdi ves tthe cou rt of i t s i nh erent j uri sdi ct i on t o enfo rce i t s ow n orders . 2 B. Fi ndi ng o f

C ont e m pt T hi s cour tr evi ew s a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of ci vi l cont empt for a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . F TCv . Kuy ke n da ll , 3 7 1 F .3 d 7 4 5 , 7 5 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A di s t r i ctcourthas abus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i t s “adj udi cat i on of the cont empt pr ocee di ngs i s bas ed upon an e r r orof l aw ora cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct . ” Id
. T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s are clea rl yerro n eo u s o n lyif th eyare

“ w ith o u t fa c tu a l su p p o rt in th e re c o rd o r if th e a p p e llate c o u rt, af ter re v iew in g a ll t he evi dence , i s l eftw i t h a def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thata mi s t ake ha s been m ade. ” Manni ng v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 4 6 F . 3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T o pr evai l i n t he di s t r i ctcourt , a pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove, bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence : ( 1) a val i d cour tor derexi s t ed; ( 2) t he defendanthad k n o w le d g e o f

th e o rd e r; a n d (3 ) t h e d e fe n d a n t d is o b e y e d th e o rd e r. R el i an ce Ins. C o. v. Mas tC ons tr . C o. , 159 F. 3d 1311, 1315 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . T he Local Pages does notdi s put e the val i di t yof the St i pul at ed J udgm entori t s know l edge of t heA s o w n e r a n d p re sid e n t o f T h e L o c a l P a g e s, C lar k h a d th e o b lig a tio n to 3 p re v e n t th e c o rp o ra tio n ’s v io la tio n o f th e S tip u la te d J u d g m e n t. See FTCv. Kuy ke n da ll , 3 7 1 F . 3 d 7 4 5 , 7 5 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h u s, the d istri ct co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on t hatempl oy ees of The L ocal Pages vi ol at ed the St i pul at ed Ju d g m e n t is su fficie n t to su p p o rt a n o rd e r o f c o n tem p t ag a in st C lar k a s w e ll. -8- or der . T her efor e, t he cont empt or deri s pr operi f ther e i s cl earand convi nci ng evi dence t he St i pul at ed J udgm entw as vi ol at ed. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n fi ndi ng cl earand convi nci ng evi dence T he L ocal Pages vi ol at ed the St i pul at ed J udgm ent . T hr ee 3
w i t nes s es , al l cus t om er s of PD C , t es t i fi ed att he cont empt hear i ng thatempl oy ees of The L ocal Pages had r epr es ent ed themsel ves as aff i l i at ed w i th PD C w hen m aki ng s al es cal l s . L i s a Pr eec e s t at ed a Local Pages empl oy ee t ol d herhe w as w ith th e B a sin D ire c to rya n d a sk e d h e r to re n e w h e r y e llo w p a g e s listin g . Jo e lle M ar t i ns en t es t i fi ed B al l ent er ed hers t or e ca rry i ng a PD C di r ect oryand c o n fir m e d , in re s p o n s e to M a rt in s e n ’s q u e s tio n , th a t it w a s tim e fo r r e n e w a l. B r ad H afe n expl ai ned he a l s o w as as ked t o r enew hi s s ubs cr i pt i on and w as faxe d a copyof hi s PD C ad byT he Local Pages cal l er . I n addi t i on t o pr ovi di ng evi dence of fa l s e r epr es ent at i ons of affi l i at i on, t he t es t i m onyof thes e w i tnes s es su p p o rts th e d istric t co u rt’s fin d in g th a t em p lo y e e s o f T h e L o c a l P a g e s fa lse ly p asse d o ff

the P D C d ir ec toryas th eir ow n . Itw as re aso n ab le fo r th e d istri ct co u rt t o fi nd t hatbyas ki ng forr enew al s r athert han new s ubs cr i pt i ons , T he Local Pages em p loy ee s im p li ed theyw o rke d fo r th e P D C d ir ec tory , in w h ich th e c u stom ers a lre a d yh a d p lac e d a d v e rtise m e n ts. In a d d iti o n , B ra n d yJo h n so n ’s te stim o n yis-9-

di r ectevi dence of fa l s e r epr es ent at i ons thatPD C w oul d no l ongerpubl i s h a di r ect or yi n t he r egi on and The L ocal Pages w oul d be r epl aci ng i t . I n her test im o n y , Jo h n so n stat ed B all ex p li cit lytold h er the B asin P h o n e D ir ec tory w oul d no l ongerbe s ervi ng t he U i nt ah B as i n and The L ocal Pages w oul d now s erve the r egi on. In c h a llen g in g th e su fficie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e , T h e L o c a l P a g e s a ttem p ts to d isc o u n t th e w itn e ss e s’ te stim o n yb yn o tin g c o n tra d ictio n s b e tw e e n th e ir t es t i m onyatt r i al and atdepos i t i on. I ti s w el l - s et t l ed thatdet erm i nat i ons of w i t nes s cr edi bi l i t yar e fort he di s tr i ctcourt , and thi s court“w i l l t her efor e not r eexa m i ne the cr edi bi l i t yof a w i tnes s ’ t es t i m onyon appea l . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Silvers , 84 F. 3d 1317, 1328 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . R ecogni zi ng thi s pr i nci pl e, T he L ocal Pages at t empt s t o char act er i ze i t s cl ai m as a cha l l enge t o the s tr ength of the evi dence , noti t s cr edi bi l i t y . T hi s di s t i nct i on i s unconvi nci ng, how ever , as chal l enges t o t he w i t nes s es ’ faul tyas s um pt i ons , confus i on, and contr adi ct i ons go dir ect l yt o credi bil i t y . B ecause the di stri ctcou rtcho se t o b el i eve the w i tnesses’ t es t i m onyand expl anat i ons fort he al l eged c ontr adi ct i ons , t hi s courtw i l l not d isru p t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s find ing . L ikew ise, T h e L o ca l Pa g es’ reli an ce o n B all ’s test im o n yto co n tr o v ert P D C ’s w itn esse s is m isplace d , b ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt expl i ci t l yfound B al l w as notbel i evabl e. T he Local Pages al s o ar gues t he hea r i ng t es t i m ony , even i f ac cept ed as tru e , d o e s n o t p ro v id e s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e th e S tip u la te d J u d g m e n t w a s v io la te d .In its b rie f, T h e L o c a l P a g e s c h a llen g e s th e v a lid ityo f P D C ’s r ig h t to 4 “B as i n D i r ect or y ” as a pr ot ect abl e tr ademar k. A ppel l antB r . at17- 18. T hi s i s s ue w as notar gued befor e the di s t r i ctcourtand thi s courtw i l l notcons i deri ton a p p e a l. See Chavezv. C i t y of A l buquer que , 402 F. 3d 1039, 1047 ( 10th C i r . 2005) (“A bsent ext raor dinaryci rcum st ances n ot pr esenthere, w e do no tadd res s a rg u m e n ts ra ise d fo r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l.” (c itatio n o m itt e d )). In a n ye v e n t, T he Local Pages agr eed i n t he Sett l ementA gr eementand St i pul at ed J udgm entnot to fa lse lyre p re se n t it s a ffili a tio n w ith P D C , so th e tra d e m a rk ’s le g a l p ro tec tio n is irre lev a n t. -10- I tfi r s tpoi nt s outt hatno pr ovi s i on of the St i pul at ed J udgm entpr ohi bi t s L ocal Pages empl oy ees fr om t aki ng a compet i t or ’ s di r ect or yi nt o a s al es m eet i ng or s endi ng a copyof the cus t om er ’ s ad i n a compet i ng di r ect or y . T hi s ar gum ent m i s s es t he poi nt . W hi l e thes e ac t s ar e notal one vi ol at i ons of the St i pul at ed J u d g m e n t, th e ya re e v id e n c e o f a n in te n t to p a s s o ff

P D C ’s d ir e c to ry a s th e iro w n . T h e L o c a l P a g e s a lso a rg u e s its e m p lo y e e ’s s tate m e n t th a t h e w a s w ith th e B a sin Di r e c t o r ywa s n o ta fa l s e s t a t e me n tb e c a u s e Ba s i n Di r e c t o ryi s a g e n e r i c n a me w hi ch ca n des cr i be anydi r ect or yi n the r egi on, i ncl udi ng thatof The L ocal Pages . T he di s t r i ctcour t , how ever , det erm i ned fa l s e r epr es ent at i ons of

4
a ffili a tio n s w e re m a d e . G iv e n T h e L o c a l P a g e s’ a w a re n e ss o f th e B a sin D i r ect or y , t hi s fi ndi ng w as notcl ear l yerr oneous . Fi nal l y , t hi s courtr ej ect s t he ar gum entt hatr epr es ent at i ons t o empl oy ees w i thoutpur chas i ng pow erdo not a m o u n t to re p re se n tatio n s to c u sto m e rs. B e c a u se th e se e m p lo y e e s in ter a c ted w ith T he Local Pages s al es peopl e r egar di ng the pur chas e of y el l ow pages ads , i tw as n o t cle a rlye rro n e o u s fo r th e d istric t co u rt to d e ter m in e fa lse re p re se n tatio n s to t hese em ploy ees con st i tuted fal se r epresent at i on s t o cu st om ers .T o t he ext entT he Local Pages ar gues t he di s tr i ctcourtappl i ed the w r ong 5 l egal s t andar d, t hi s ar gum entdi r ect l ycontr adi ct s t he court ’ s w r i t t en conc l us i ons of l aw , i n w hi ch i tt w i ce s t at es PD C pr oved a vi ol at i on of the i nj unct i on bycl ear and convi nci ng evi dence . T he di s tr i ctcourtfi r s ts t at es , “PD C m eti t s bur den of pr ovi ng bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence . . . t hatdefe ndant s di s obey ed the or der . ” I tcont i nues , “Speci fi cal l y , PD C pr oved bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatdefe ndant s vi ol at ed Subpar agr aphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the i nj unct i on . . . . ” B as ed on thes e s t at ement s and the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence di s cus s ed above , (c o n tin u e d ...) -11- T h e L o ca l Pa g es m ak es tw o ad d it ion al ch all en g es to the d istri ct co u rt ’s fi ndi ngs , w hi ch thi s courtal s o r ej ect s . Fi r s t , T he Local Pages ’ cont ent i on thatt he d istri ct co u rtb ase d it s fin d ing o f c o n tem p t solelyo n it s d isbe li ef o f B all ’s tes tim o n yis b e lied b yth e c o u rt’s o ra l ru lin g . In its ru lin g , the c o u rt e x p lain e d its fin d in g s w e re b a se d o n th e tes tim o n y o f P D C ’s w itn e ss e s. It o n lyn o ted its d isb e lief

o f B a ll t o a c k n o w led g e , an d d isc o u n t, th e c o m p e tin g e v id e n c e . T h is cour tal s o concl udes t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e s uffi ci entunderR ul e 52( a) t o al l ow form eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew . T he court ’ s or al rul i ng i ndi cat ed w hi ch t es t i m onys uppor t ed i t s fi ndi ngs as t o eac h vi ol at i on. B as ed on thi s r efe r ence , t hi s cour tw as abl e t o exami ne the w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m onyt o det erm i ne w hether t ho se fi nd i ng s w ere cl earl yerr on eou s. T hus , t he evi dence pr es ent ed att he hea r i ng adequa t el ys uppor t ed the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatPD C pr oved, bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , T he Local Pages vi ol at ed the St i pul at ed J udgm ent . T hi s courtt her efor e conc l udes th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in h o ld in g T h e L o c a l P a g e s in c o n tem p t. 5( . . . cont i nued) 5 th is c o u rt c o n c lu d e s th e d istric t co u rt f u llyu n d e rsto o d th e e v id e n tiary stan d a rd it w a s r e q u i r e d t o a p p l y. T hi s cour thas r ecogni zed a defe ns e w hen a de fenda nts how s bycl earand 6 c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t h e w a s “ p lain lya n d u n m ista k a b ly ” u n a b le to c o m p ly w ith th e c o u rt o rd e r. D onovan v. B urget tG r eenhous es , Inc. , 759 F. 2d 1483, 1486 ( 10t h C i r . 1985) . A l t hough t hi s defe ns e i s r el at ed t o the s ubs t ant i al compl i ance defe ns e ar gued byT he Local Pages , i ti s a s epar at e defens e, focus i ng on the i m pos s i bi l i t yof compl i ance r athert han the l evel of compl i ance achi eved. T he L o c a l P a g e s d o e s n o t a rg u e it w a s u n a b le to c o m p ly w ith th e S tip u la te d J u d g m e n t. -12- C . Sub s t ant i al C om pl i ance W hi l e s om e court s have r ecogni zed s ubs t ant i al compl i ance as a defens e i n a cont empt pr ocee di ng, t hi s cour thas notpr evi ous l yr ecogni zed the defens e i n a publ i s hed opi ni on. I n thos e court s t hathave r ecogni zed the defens e, a defendant 6
w ho has vi ol at ed a c our tor derm ayavoi d l i abi l i tyforcont empt “bys how i ng by c lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t ‘a ll rea so n a b le s tep s’ w e re tak e n in g o o d fa ith t o ens ur e compl i ance w i t h t he courtor derand thatt her e w as s ubs t ant i al compl i ance . ” B auchm an v. W. High Sch. , 906 F. Supp. 1483, 1494 ( D . U t ah 1 9 9 5 ). T h e L o c a l P a g e s a rg u e s it to o k su c h re a so n a b le s tep s b y(1 ) e n su rin g a ll s al es r epr es ent at i ves r ece i ved and r evi ew ed a c opyof the St i pul at ed J udgm ent and ( 2) es t abl i s hi ng and enfor ci ng a C ode of Conductforempl oy ees t hatw ent b e y o n d th e s ta n d a rd s s e t fo rt h in th e S tip u la te d J u d g m e n t. T his cou rtneed no tdecide w hethert o recog nize s ub st anti al com pli ance a s a defe ns e i n t hi s ci r cui t . A s s um i ng the defens e exi s t s , T he Local Pages has fai l ed t o pr ove i ts houl d appl yi n t hi s cas e. T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatal thoughT he Local Pages ar gues t hi s fi ndi ng confl i ct s w i th t es t i m onybyC l ark t hat 7 al l empl oy ees w er e pr ovi ded copi es of the St i pul at ed J udgm entand Sett l ement A gr eement . T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ngs i ndi cat e, how ever , i tfound a di ffe r ence betw een the companypol i cy , as t es t i fi ed t o byC l ark, and the appl i cat i on of that pol i cyi n t hi s i ns t ance . Fur t her , B al l ’ s w r i t t en ce r t i fi cat i on thats he r ece i ved the S tip u late d Ju d g m e n t an d S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t d o e s n o t m a k e th is fin d in g c lea rly e rr o n e o u s b e c a u s e h e r h e a ri n g te s tim o n yd ir e c tly c o n tr a d ic ts th is c e rt ific a tio n . -13- som e st eps w ere t aken t o en sure com pli ance w i th the Sti pu l at ed Jud gm ent, these s t eps w er e i ns uffi ci ent t o cons t i tut e a defe ns e. Speci fi cal l y , t he courtnot ed B al l ’ s t es t i m onyt hats he w as neverpr es ent ed the Set t l ementA gr eementort he St i pul at ed J udgm entforherr evi ew . B eca us e the ques t i on of w hetherT he Local 7 Pages s ubs t ant i al l ycompl i ed w i th the courtor deri s partof the det erm i nat i on of cont empt , t hi s cour tr evi ew s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on forabus e of d is c re tio n . See Hal l et tv. Morgan , 2 9 6 F .3 d 7 3 2 , 7 5 0 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). G iv e n B a ll’s te stim o n ya n d T h e L o c a l P a g e s’ fa ilu re to f u rth e r in v e stig a te B a ll’s b e h a v io r a f

ter th e a lleg e d m isc o n d u c t, th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n a s to th e ste p s ta k e n b yT h e L o c a l P a g e s w a s n o t an a b u se o f d isc re tio n . C o n tra ryto T h e L o c a l P a g e s’ a ss e rtio n s, th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in concl udi ng t he exi s t ence of a pol i cydi d notal one cons t i tut e al l r eas onabl e s t eps t o ens ur e compl i ance . T hi s i s es peci al l yt rue i n l i ghtof evi dence t he pol i cyw as insu ffici en t t o en su re e m p loy ee s ac tuallyrea d the S ti p u lat ed Ju d g m en t. F u rth er, t he numer ous vi ol at i ons of the St i pul at ed J udgm entdi s cus s ed above underm i ne T h e L o ca l Pa g es’ c o n tention that itin fac t sub stan ti all yco m p li ed w ith the c o u rtT he Local Pages ’ r el i ance on B auchm an v. Wes tHigh School , 906 F. Supp. 8 1483 ( D . U t ah 1995) , i s m i s pl ace d. I n thatcas e, t he courtfound s chool author i t i es had s ubs t ant i al l ycompl i ed w i th a courtor derenj oi ni ng the s i ngi ng of t w o r el i gi ous s ongs athi gh s chool gr aduat i on, even though s tudent s and audi ence m ember s defi ed the author i t i es and s ang the s ongs neverthel es s . T he Local Pages at t empt s t o l i ken thi s cas e t o B auchm an byar gui ng the vi ol at i on byB al l w as s i m i l ar l youtof i t s contr ol . T hi s cas e i s di s t i ngui s habl e, how ever , beca us e the vi ol at i ons w er e notcomm i t t ed byunr el at ed thi r d part i es , as i n B auchm an , butby T he Local Pages ’ ow n empl oy ee. -14- or der . T hus , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng T he Local Pages ’ s ubs t ant i al compl i ance defe ns e. 8 I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, th is c o u rt a ffi r ms t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derof cont empt agai ns tT he Local Pages and the or derr equi r i ng T he Local Pages t o pay P D C ’s cost s and att orney s’ fees. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge