1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-21670-Civ-ALTONAGA/TORRES

In Re Application of:

COLOMBO AGROINDÚSTRIA S.A., 

Applicant, 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 For 

Judicial Assistance in Obtaining

Evidence For Use in a Foreign and 

International Proceeding.

___________________________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR FINDING OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AND

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS AGAINST RESPONDENT

This matter is before the Court on Colombo Agroindústria S.A.’s (the 

“Applicant” or “Company”) motion for an order to show cause why Eloy Rodrigo 

Colombo (the “Respondent” or “Mr. Colombo”) should not be held in contempt and 

be sanctioned for his failure to comply with this Court’s discovery orders. [D.E. 31]. 

Respondent filed a pro se response to the Company’s motion on March 2, 2023,

[D.E. 36], to which the Company has not replied.1 Therefore, the Company’s motion 

is now ripe for disposition. After careful review of the motion, the record, the

1 Respondent’s pro se filing was styled as both a response to Applicant’s motion for 

order to show cause and sanctions, as well as a motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s prior order denying his motion to vacate the § 1782 grant. By Order of 

March 3, 3023, Chief Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga denied the portions of Respondent’s 

brief seeking to re-open the case, vacate the § 1782 grant, and quash the subpoena. 

[D.E. 39]. Thus, this Order addresses the remaining portions of Respondent’s filing 

that are responsive to Applicant’s motion for an order to show cause and to impose 

sanctions, which was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for disposition 

on February 6, 2023. [D.E. 32]. 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 1 of 15
2

relevant authority, and for the reasons discussed below, the Applicant’s motion to 

find Mr. Colombo in contempt of court and impose sanctions is GRANTED in part.

We find that the record shows cause to hold Mr. Colombo in contempt of 

court. Accordingly, we hereby ORDER him to appear for an in-person hearing 

before this Court on Wednesday, March 29, 2023, at 10:30 AM. At this hearing, 

Mr. Colombo will be afforded one last opportunity to purge his contempt by bringing 

with him all documents and communications responsive to the October 2022 

subpoena. Failure to comply with this third Order by not appearing or not bringing

the responsive materials to the hearing will result in the imposition of further 

sanctions and a final adjudication of contempt that may then require imposition of 

monetary fines and/or result in his coercive incarceration. 

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a motion for sanctions and to show cause in connection with a 28 

U.S.C. § 1782 application for discovery in aid of foreign proceedings. The Applicant

moves this Court for a finding of civil contempt and sanctions against Mr. Colombo 

for his continuous, willful, and baseless refusals to comply with this Court’s orders 

directing him to produce documents and communications responsive to Applicant’s 

§ 1782 subpoena. This Court has twice upheld the merits of the Company’s § 1782 

Application, and has twice directed Respondent to produce the responsive 

documents. Yet, the Court’s unambiguous and clear directives have fallen on deaf

ears. 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 2 of 15
3

On May 31, 2022, Colombo Agroindústria filed an ex parte motion (the

“Petition” or “Application”) for judicial assistance in aid of foreign proceedings 

pursuant to § 1782. [D.E. 1]. The Company’s application requested the issuance of 

an order permitting it to obtain documentary and testimonial discovery from 

Mr. Colombo for use in civil and criminal proceedings that the Company intends to

file in Brazil against Mr. Colombo for his alleged involvement in the dissemination 

of defamatory statements about the Company. Specifically, Mr. Colombo is accused 

of defaming the Company by means of an email communication that Mr. Colombo

sent to two of the Company’s Brazilian creditors wherein he accused the Company 

of engaging in accounting, tax, and legal fraud. The Company attached a copy of 

this email to its initial § 1782 Application.

On June 16, 2022, this Court granted the ex parte motion, ordering the 

Company to “serve [Mr.] Colombo with a subpoena substantially in the form of the 

subpoena attached to the Petition.” [D.E. 3]. Mr. Colombo, then represented by 

counsel, filed a motion to vacate that order and to quash the subpoena, [D.E. 8], but 

this Court rejected the merits of Mr. Colombo’s objections and denied his motion on 

September 23, 2022. [D.E. 23]. No appeal was filed to that Order thus rendering it 

a final Order in the case.

Based on that final adjudication to the application, on October 15, 2022, Mr. 

Colombo was served with another subpoena requesting his deposition and the 

production of documents. This subpoena required Mr. Colombo to appear for a 

deposition on November 18, 2022, and to produce all responsive documents on or

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 3 of 15
4

before October 26, 2022. [D.E. 24-1]. On that same day, Mr. Colombo emailed the 

Company’s counsel with his purported production, which consisted of two single

attachments, both of which were already in the possession of the Company and 

were attached to its initial § 1782 Petition. In the email, Mr. Colombo failed to 

raise any objections to the documents requested in the subpoena, and instead 

maintained that “[t]here is not any other document related to th[e] [S]ubpoena 

request.” [D.E. 24-2].

On November 18, 2022, Mr. Colombo was deposed. During his deposition, he 

contradicted his prior statement and expressly confirmed that he was in possession 

of various documents and communications responsive to the subpoena, but which he 

nevertheless had chosen not to produce. Among these were several email and 

WhatsApp communications with shareholders, Board members, administrators, and

others regarding his fraud allegations against the Company. Mr. Colombo testified 

that he would gather those documents and communications and turn them over to 

the Company. [D.E. 24 at 4–8]. 

After waiting almost two weeks with no additional communication from 

Mr. Colombo regarding his promises to provide the missing documents, on 

November 30, 2022, the Company’s lawyers sent him a demand letter detailing his 

outstanding production of documents in accordance with his testimony at the 

deposition. [D.E. 24-3]. The demand letter spelled out in detail the categories of 

documents that were still outstanding, and cross-referenced the deposition 

testimony wherein Mr. Colombo expressly confirmed that he had possession over 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 4 of 15
5

documents responsive to each category. Id. at 1–3. The letter also warned that if 

he failed to produce the documents by December 7, 2022, the Company would move 

the Court to compel his production. 

Mr. Colombo never delivered on his promises. Instead, on December 7th he 

sent an email to the Company stating that he would not be producing any 

documents “unless” they were requested by this Court directly. [D.E. 24-4]. In his 

email, Mr. Colombo represented that he would produce the missing documents only

if ordered to do so by “Judge Cecília Altonaga because she is the guardian of the 

law.” Id. His email also made a passing reference to vague and unsubstantiated 

confidentiality concerns with his production. However, he did not cite any 

applicable law nor did he describe with any detail the kind of information that 

would raise confidentiality issues. 

In light of Mr. Colombo’s backpedaling, the Company filed a motion to compel 

production on December 12, 2022, on the basis that Mr. Colombo had adamantly 

refused to comply with his discovery obligations. [D.E. 24]. The motion noted that

Mr. Colombo conceded during his deposition that he had possession and control over 

unproduced responsive materials. Among other things, the motion stated that he 

was a member of a WhatsApp group that was created specifically for the purpose of 

discussing the fraud allegations he was making against the Company; that he sent 

and received messages about the fraud allegations through that WhatsApp group, 

as well as through email communications; that he still had those communications

saved on his cellphone; and that he had several documents that contained evidence 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 5 of 15
6

of the alleged fraud. [D.E. 24 at 4–11]. Chief Judge Altonaga granted the 

Company’s motion to compel on December 28, 2022, and directed Mr. Colombo, for 

the second time, “to produce all documents and communications responsive to the 

Documents Requests in the Subpoena.” [D.E. 25]. 

On December 29, 2022, the Company’s attorneys provided Mr. Colombo with 

the Court Order directing him to produce the documents and explaining his 

obligations under the Order. [D.E. 31-2 at 10–11]. The Company provided 

Mr. Colombo a seven-day grace period to comply, and warned him that it would 

pursue sanctions if he continued to ignore his discovery obligations. Id.

Rather than responding to this communication, on December 30, 2022, 

Mr. Colombo moved for an enlargement of time to respond to the Company’s motion 

to compel, [D.E. 26], even though the Court had already granted the motion. The

Court denied Mr. Colombo’s motion for extension. [D.E. 27]. 

On January 9, 2023, Mr. Colombo filed a motion titled, Motion to Explain 

Why Eloy Rodrigo Colombo Cannot Comply with the Production of Documents 

Pursued by the Applicant, and to Vacate and Quash the Subpoena. [D.E. 28; 29].

The Court again denied this second motion to quash on January 11, 2023. [D.E.

30].

On January 23, 2023, the Company sent a final email to Mr. Colombo, 

demanding that he comply with the Court’s orders. [D.E. 31-2 at 9]. The email 

reiterated the Company’s intention to move for sanctions to enforce compliance. 

Mr. Colombo responded on January 24, 2023, confirming that “I have the messages 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 6 of 15
7

we talked about in the 18 November 2022 testimony,” but suggesting that he was 

not required to produce the documents because “the members of your client 

Colombo Agroindústria have all the same messages.” Id. at 8. 

The Company responded the same day listing the categories of documents 

Mr. Colombo testified he had and would produce, and explaining that whether the 

subpoenaed documents were obtainable from Brazilian sources was immaterial to 

Mr. Colombo’s obligation to produce the documents. The Company emphasized 

that, in a last effort to avoid Court intervention and a sanctions motion, it would 

afford Mr. Colombo until January 26, 2023, to produce the documents. Id. at 6–7.

On January 26, 2023, Mr. Colombo responded, informing the Company that 

he would not comply with the Court’s order, and demanding that the Company

“[q]uash this subpoena” and “reimburse [him] of [sic] the expenses . . . to cope with 

this subpoena.” Id. at 5. Mr. Colombo’s extensive email suggested that he was not 

obligated to produce the documents because these could be obtained from other 

sources, and categorized the Company’s efforts to obtain the § 1782 discovery as 

crimes under Brazilian law. Mr. Colombo also attached a total of 13 documents to 

his email, most of which comprise of statutes, news articles, docket filings in this 

action, and correspondence from the Company about this action that do not respond 

to the subpoena. [D.E. 31 at 7–8].

II. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES AND LAW

Courts possess inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders 

through civil contempt. Citronelle–Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.2d 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 7 of 15
8

1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 1991) (citing Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, 86 

S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966)). A party seeking civil contempt bears the initial 

burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor has 

violated an outstanding court order. S.E.C. v. Greenberg, 105 F. Supp. 3d 1342 

(S.D. Fla. 2015) (citing CFTC v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F.2d 1525, 

1529 (11th Cir. 1992)). A finding of civil contempt must be supported by clear and 

convincing evidence that: (1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2)

the order was clear and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator had the ability to 

comply with the order. F.T.C. v. Leshin, 618 F.3d 1221, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010) 

(citing Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002)).

When imposing sanctions for civil contempt, a court “ha[s] numerous options, 

among them: a coercive daily fine, a compensatory fine, attorneys’ fees and expenses

. . . and coercive incarceration.” Citronelle–Mobile, 943 F.2d at 1304. Civil contempt 

fines can also take the form of per diem fines imposed for each day a contemnor fails 

to comply with an affirmative court order, or of fixed fines imposed and suspended 

pending future compliance. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 

512 U.S. 821, 829 (1994). Sanctions imposed for civil contempt to coerce compliance 

“cannot be any greater than necessary to ensure such compliance” and may not be 

so excessive as to be punitive in nature. Citronelle–Mobile, 943 F.2d at 1304; In re 

Trinity Industries, 876 F.2d 1485, 1493 (11th Cir. 1989). 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 8 of 15
9 

III. ANALYSIS

Based on our independent review of the record, we agree with the Company 

that Mr. Colombo’s continuous, willful, and baseless refusals to comply with this 

Court’s multiple orders to produce all documents responsive to the subpoena

warrant a finding of civil contempt and the imposition of compensatory sanctions, 

as detailed in the conclusion section of this order. 

As noted earlier, this Court has issued two different orders clearly instructing 

Mr. Colombo that he must produce all documents and communications responsive to 

the October 2022 subpoena. [D.E. 3; 25]. The Chief Judge’s orders unambiguously 

upheld the Company’s entitlement to the requested discovery pursuant to its § 1782

application for judicial assistance, and unequivocally directed Mr. Colombo “to

produce all documents and communications responsive to the Documents Requests 

in the Subpoena.” [D.E. 25]. Indeed, one of these orders was issued in response to

the Company’s motion to compel, which specifically listed each of the category of 

documents that Mr. Colombo must produce. See [D.E. 24 at 4–11].

The record makes clear that Mr. Colombo has had the ability to comply with 

this Court’s orders but has chosen not to. Mr. Colombo himself has admitted on 

multiple occasions to having possession of unproduced responsive documents, as 

well as having the capacity to collect these documents and produce them. His 

deposition testimony, for instance, indicates that Mr. Colombo possesses responsive 

documents and communications, including several email and WhatsApp 

communications relating to the Company’s alleged fraud, as well as documents that 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 9 of 15
10

Mr. Colombo believes demonstrate that the Company committed the alleged 

unlawful acts. See id. (“A. So, as far as I remember, they are all in my email. There 

were several emails that were interchanged, also communications through 

WhatsApp. Q. And you still have copies of all that? A. Yes. Q. So you will be able 

to produce those – you will be able to collect those and produce those to us. A. 

Yes.”); see also [D.E. 31-2 at 8] (“I have the messages we talked about in the 18 

November 2022 testimony”). Yet, despite acknowledging possession and control 

over these responsive materials, Mr. Colombo has continued to withhold them 

without any basis on law and in direct defiance of this Court’s orders.

The record also reflects that the Company’s lawyers have repeatedly engaged 

in good faith efforts to confer with Mr. Colombo to try to secure compliance but 

those efforts have been unsuccessful. The Company’s lawyers have exchanged

extensive communications with Mr. Colombo and have attempted to facilitate his 

production by, among other things, explaining to him the meaning and implications 

of this Court’s orders, providing him with itemized lists of the categories of 

outstanding responsive documents, affording him grace periods to comply with his 

discovery obligations, and warning him of the consequences of persistent noncompliance, all to no avail. [D.E. 24-2; 24-3; 31-2]. 

Mr. Colombo’s response does nothing to explain his discovery misconduct, 

and fails to provide a sound basis for excusing the willful and deliberate disregard 

for his discovery obligations and this Court’s orders. Indeed, Mr. Colombo’s 28-

page, single-spaced brief is but a misguided attempt to adjudicate the merits of the 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 10 of 15
11

Brazilian proceedings that served as predicate for the approval of the Company’s 

§ 1782. In his brief, Mr. Colombo purports to cite shareholders meeting minutes 

and Brazilian case law that, according to him, exonerate him form any liability 

under Brazilian law. [D.E. 36]. But even if they had any merit (which we cannot 

find because this Court has already denied Respondent’s motion to vacate the § 

1782 grant twice) the allegations therein are simply unresponsive to this discovery 

dispute.2 

 Finally, Respondent’s argument that the subpoena is unduly burdensome 

and intrusive is baseless and conclusory. Whatever psychological and financial 

stresses that may have arisen form the unnecessary prolongation of these 

proceedings are directly attributable to Mr. Colombo’s non-compliance with this 

Court’s orders, not to the nature of the subpoena. Further, as this Court has 

2 For instance, Respondent’s claims that the Company has engaged in illegal acts, 

including minutes and financial statements manipulation and bylaws violations, 

may support his arguments on the merits of the Brazilian cases, but are irrelevant 

in this discovery dispute. See In re Furstenberg Fin. Sas & Marc Bataillon, No. 16-

mc-60266-BLOOM, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194711, at *20 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2016) 

(“[I]t is not the role of this Court to address the underlying merits of an action at the 

discovery-seeking stage before us.”). Second, Respondent’s argument that the 

Brazilian ruling he purports to cite undermines the merits of the Company’s § 1782 

Application is also unavailing. Indeed, a proper reading of the cited excerpts 

underscore the need for discovery, for as that judge acknowledged, “it is not possible 

a priori to discard the truthfulness of the accusations brought forth against the 

plaintiff company by defendant, a minority shareholder. All such issues must be 

processed and analyzed considering the documents and evidence that the defendant 

must present.” [D.E. 36 at 10] (emphasis added). Finally, Respondent’s argument 

that the fact that the Company has not yet brought any lawsuit arising from his 

defamatory email is proof that the company will not commence foreign proceedings 

against him, is flawed circular reasoning. The obvious response is that no lawsuits 

arising from these allegedly defamatory statements may have been initiated 

because Respondent has yet to produce any of the documents responsive to the 

Company’s § 1782 Application.

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 11 of 15
12

previously held, the topics outlined in the subpoena and the documents requested 

therein are relevant and narrowly tailored to the acts of defamation for which 

Respondent is allegedly responsible.

In sum, Respondent has plainly not taken all the reasonable steps he can to 

comply with the Court’s orders. Though some steps were taken to comply, such as 

appearing for his deposition, the record also shows that, by his own admissions, 

Mr. Colombo has deliberately chosen not to produce several documents and 

communications responsive to the subpoena, despite clear and unambiguous 

instructions form this Court directing him to do so. At his deposition, he 

acknowledged possession and control over the responsive documents, and promised 

that he would produce them. He did not. Later, he said that he would only produce 

the documents upon a second order form the Court. That second order compelling 

discovery came, but, again, Mr. Colombo failed to comply. In his response he does 

not deny that he has repeatedly ignored and disobeyed the Court’s order, but 

instead raises groundless arguments that have been previously dismissed by this 

Court, including his baseless claims that he is not required to comply with the 

subpoena because many of the responsive documents are obtainable form Brazilian 

sources, or that he needs not comply because he has evidence that the Company has 

engaged in embezzlement, extortion, and retaliation under Brazilian law. 

In light of this clear pattern of continuous, willful, and baseless disregard for 

this Court’s orders directing him to produce all documents responsive to the 

subpoena, we find Mr. Colombo is now subject to Rule sanctions and, further, that 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 12 of 15
13

cause exists to hold him in contempt of court. We find that the sanctions now 

imposed, as detailed below, are the minimum sanctions necessary to obtain 

compliance from Mr. Colombo at this juncture. And they are the minimum possible 

measures the Court can take now short of formally finding him in contempt and 

adjudicating him as such. If Mr. Colombo fails to comply with this last Order 

directing him to fully comply with the subpoena, and after affording him an 

evidentiary hearing to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, then a 

formal contempt of court finding may prove necessary to enforce the Court’s 

jurisdiction. See, e.g., BLANCO GmbH + Co. KG v. Vlanco Indus., LLC, No. 12-

61580-CIV, 2022 WL 488934, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2022) (holding respondent in 

civil contempt and ordering his coercive incarceration for failure to comply with 

court orders); Mesa v. Luis Garcia Land Serv., Co., 218 F. Supp. 3d 1375, 1381 (S.D. 

Fla. 2016) (ruling that if respondent “fails to purge his civil contempt . . . the 

undersigned will issue a warrant for his arrest and he shall be incarcerated until 

such time that he complies with his discovery obligations); United States v. 

Chandler, No. 1:07-CV-1065-RLV-LTW, 2008 WL 11337307, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 

2008) (“the Court concludes that respondent should be incarcerated as a proper 

exercise of the Court’s civil contempt authority.”).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant’s Motion for a finding of civil 

contempt and sanctions [D.E. 31] is GRANTED in part as follows:

1. We find there is cause on this record to hold Mr. Colombo in CIVIL 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 13 of 15
14

CONTEMPT for his continuous disregard of this Court’s discovery orders 

[D.E. 3; 25]. A final adjudication of contempt shall not be entered at this 

time, pending the evidentiary hearing set herein and the entry of this 

Order that provides Mr. Colombo with one clear chance to comply with 

three Court Orders.

2. Under Rule 37, we instead impose a coercive monetary sanction in the 

amount of $100 per day for each day that Mr. Colombo continues to be in 

violation of the discovery orders, with the sanctions to accrue beginning on 

March 20, 2023.

3. The Applicant and Mr. Colombo are ORDERED to appear for an in-person 

hearing before this Court on Wednesday, March 29, 2023, at 10:30 AM.

This hearing will take place at the United States Courthouse, James 

Lawrence King Building, Courtroom 5 - Tenth Floor, 99 N.E. 4th Street, 

Miami, Florida. 

4. At the hearing, Mr. Colombo will be afforded one last opportunity to cure 

his contempt by fully complying with the Court’s discovery orders. To that 

end, Mr. Colombo is ORDERED to bring all documents and 

communications in his possession, control, or custody that are responsive 

to the October 2022 subpoena to this hearing. The responsive documents 

must be in a format that makes them readily accessible and suitable for 

immediate production at the hearing (i.e., printed hardcopies, or digital 

files saved in a USB flash drive).

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 14 of 15
15

5. Upon production of all responsive documents and communications at the 

hearing, the monetary sanctions referenced in paragraph 2 will be 

retroactively suspended. However, if Mr. Colombo fails to comply 

with this order, the Applicant will be entitled to collect all sanctions, and 

Mr. Colombo may then be held in contempt of court, which may result in

his coercive incarceration until compliance with the subpoena is 

effective. 

6. The Applicant is instructed to file with the Court a certificate of service 

indicating that notice of this Order was served on Mr. Colombo by 

reasonable means, including the address to which it was sent.

7. The Clerk is also instructed to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Colombo at 

his address of record. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of

March, 2023. 

/s/ Edwin G. Torres 

 EDWIN G. TORRES

 United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 1:22-mc-21670-CMA Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 15 of 15