UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DUNKIN’ DONUTS, INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware Corporation; SEVENTH

DUNKIN’ DONUTS REALTY, a

Massachusetts Corporation,

Petitioners-Appellees,  No. 02-1150

v.

THREE RIVERS ENTERTAINMENT AND

TRAVEL,

Respondent-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge.

(CA-01-33-1)

Submitted: June 25, 2002

Decided: July 29, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Christ Romanias, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Joseph

Edward Starkey, Jr., BUCHANAN INGERSOLL PROFESSIONAL

CORPORATION, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Robert L. Zisk, Jeffrey
L. Karlin, Matthew L. Van Horn, SCHMELTZER, APTAKER &

SHEPARD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Three Rivers Entertainment and Travel ("Three Rivers"), is a sole

proprietorship owned and operated by Christ Romanias. Three Rivers

appeals the imposition of $4100 in civil contempt sanctions the district court imposed on it for failing to comply with the orders directing it to comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued by Dunkin’

Donuts. Three Rivers was not a party to the litigation out of which

the subpoena issued but possessed documents that Dunkin’ Donuts

considered pertinent to its claims. 

On appeal, Romanias raises three claims of error. First, he argues

lack of notice of an order entered on October 31, 2001, finding Three

Rivers in contempt and ordering it to pay $100 per day in sanctions

for noncompliance. Second, he asserts that Three Rivers properly

complied with the subpoena on October 1 by mailing over one hundred pages to Dunkin’ Donuts’ counsel, each page consisting of the

front and the back of a canceled check. Finally, he complains the

court prematurely entered its judgment and fine on December 18,

2001, when the court previously scheduled an evidentiary hearing for

December 19 to determine whether Three Rivers could demonstrate

good cause for failing to comply with the subpoena. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(e) empowers district courts to

hold non-parties who fail to obey a subpoena in contempt. We review

a contempt order for abuse of discretion. After careful review of the

factual basis for Three Rivers’ first two contentions, we reject them

as meritless. 

2 DUNKIN’ DONUTS v. THREE RIVERS ENTERTAINMENT
Nevertheless, we find the district court abused its discretion when

it canceled the December 19 evidentiary hearing that the court itself

scheduled to determine whether Three Rivers could demonstrate good

cause for its failure to obey the subpoena or a good faith effort to

comply. See United States v. Darwin Constr. Co., Inc., 873 F.2d 750,

754 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Consolidation Coal Co. v. Local 1702,

United Mine Workers of America, 683 F.2d 827, 832 (4th Cir. 1982)

(noting "a good faith attempt to comply, as well as substantial compliance or the inability to comply, can be defenses to a civil contempt

order.")). 

Following a hearing on November 26, the court issued an order

that, in relevant part, described the posture of the subpoena enforcement proceedings in the following language: "On the issue of good

cause, the parties briefly discussed [during the November 26 hearing]

the history of their communications regarding the subpoena and

Romanias’ attempts to provide the information requested. Due to disputed facts, the Court was unable to resolve either the contempt issue

or the question of attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, the Court will hold an

evidentiary hearing on December 19, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. to conclude

this matter." (R. 11). 

As a general principle, it has been observed that "[a]lthough there

are no specific procedural steps to follow in civil contempt proceedings, due process requires that the [alleged contemnor] be given the

opportunity to be heard at a ‘meaningful time and in a meaningful

manner.’" Fisher v. Marubeni Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338, 1343

(8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552

(1965)). By canceling the December 19 hearing, the district court

impermissibly denied Three Rivers the process the court itself concluded was due. The court’s inability to determine the issue of good

cause at the November 26 hearing logically means that it should not

have simply canceled the December 19 evidentiary hearing and

imposed sanctions for contempt without considering the evidence

supporting good cause Three Rivers may have been prepared to

adduce at that proceeding. 

Accordingly we vacate the judgment of the district court and

remand for the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine

whether Three Rivers can demonstrate good cause, as the court origiDUNKIN’ DONUTS v. THREE RIVERS ENTERTAINMENT 3
nally proposed to do.* We dispense with oral argument, because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

*By this disposition, we indicate no view regarding whether the district court should or should not impose sanctions on Three Rivers for

contempt. This decision is reserved initially for the district court. 

4 DUNKIN’ DONUTS v. THREE RIVERS ENTERTAINMENT