United States ex rel. Lewis v. W

alker , Civil Action No. 3:06-c v-16 (M.D. G a.). 1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) JOHN WALKER, et al . , ) ) P etitioner s, ) ) v. ) Misc. Ac tion No. 09-279 (RM C) ) THE CE NTER F OR F OOD SAFETY , ) ) Respondent. ) )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Th e Ce nte r f

or F oo d Sa fe ty

(“ CF S” ) a

bh or s th e a

pp lic a tio n o f se wag e slu dg e on to land, believingthat it is harmful to animal health and the environment. I t, and it s Ex ecutive D irec tor Andre w C. Kimbrell, have of fer ed support and inf

ormation to a g roup of plaintiffs in a qui tam lawsuit in Georg ia (“ Geor g ia P laintiffs”) that challeng es t he accur acy of a repor t on the s ubject done 1 fo r the En vir on me nta l Pr ote c tio n Ag e nc y and a lle g e s that the a uth or s v iol a te d th e F a lse Cla ims Ac t, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.
. See CF S Me m. in Op p’ n to Pe t’ rs Mo t. fo r Con te mpt (“ CF S Me m.” ) [D kt. # 6 ] at 3- 4. Whe n th e de fe nd ants in t he Ge or g ia

su it b e c a me Pe tit io ners here and a tte mpt e d to subpoena doc uments from CFS, it refuse d to comply . This liti g ation to enfor ce the subpoena e nsued, and the Co u rt o r d e r e d CF S to p r o d u c e th e d o c ume n ts r e qu e s te d u n d e r th e s u b p o e n a . B e f

o r e the Court no w a re a mot ion fo r c on te mpt fr om Pe tit ion e rs and a mot ion fo r r e c on sid e ra

tio n f ro m CF S. I. F AC TS C FS i s l o ca t edi nW as h i n gt o n , D. C

. I t i s n o t a pa rt y t o t h e Ge o rgi a la ws u i t , al t h o u ghThe subpoena was sent to the c ounsel for the Geor g ia Plaintiffs the day it was issued. See Pets.’ 2 Reply , Ex . B ( Copy

of Subpoena, se nt via email to Geor g ia Plaintiffs’ counse l). -2- it appare ntly

ag ree s wi t h i t s g oals and ha s provided var ious forms of support to it. On April 29, 2009, Petitioners’ counsel c au s ed t his Court to i ssue a subpoe na to produc e docume nts that was

serve d on CFS via persona l service by Capital Process Service s, I nc., on Apr il 30, 2009. Ex ecutive 2 Direc tor Kimbrell re sponded i n wr i t i n g t o the subpoena on May 8, 2009, but did not produce a ny documents, asse rting that the re quested items wer e all prote ct ed b y t h e attorne y -client or attorney work produc t privileg es. Nor did he produce a privileg e log . On May 14, 2009, Petitioners’ counsel

se nt a le tte r t o CF S dis pu tin g the c la ims of pr ivi le g e s and

re qu e sti ngfu

rt he r i nf or ma tio n. CF S di d

no t r e sp on d. Pe tit ion e rs ’ c ouns e l se nt a se c on d lette r to CF S on Ma y 29 , 2 00 9, thr e a te nin g to f ile a motion to compel if CFS did not respond. CFS did not respond. See Pet’rs Mot. for Contempt (“Pets. Mot.”) [Dkt. # 5] at 2-3.

Petitioners filed their motion to compel in this C ourt on J une 5, 2009. See Dkt. # 1. The motion to compel wa s serve d on CFS on J une 24, 2009. CFS filed no opposition or any

res p o n s e o f an y k in d

. Pe ti ti o n e r s th e n f il e d , o n Ju ly 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , a M o ti o n f o r Entry of Orde r Co mp ell in g P rod uct io n of Doc um ent s, whi ch th e Co urt ent eredon th e sam e day , co mp ell in g CFS “to produc e all docume nts in it s possession, custody or control reque sted by

the subpoena

. . . issued by this Court and served on the C enter for Food S afe ty on April 29, 2009, within five (5) da y s of the Co u rt’ s O r d e r . ” Ju ly

1 4 , 2 0 0 9 O r d e r

G r an ti n g M o ti o nto Co mp e l [ D kt. # 4 ]. Despite the Court’s O rder , Mr. Kimbrell wro t e t o P et itioners’ counse l on J uly 20, 2009, ref using to produc e any

documents and pr oviding a n admittedly

insufficient privilege log. See Pet’rs Mot. at 4; CFS Mot. at 10. Petiti oners’ counsel re plied on J uly 27, 200 9 , i n fo rm ing Mr

.-3-

Ki mbr e ll that CF S wa s in vio la tio n o f the Court Or de r and sh ou ld pr od uc e the do c ume nts by

July 30, 2009, or Petitioners wou l d s ee k t o h ave CF S held in contempt. At that point, C FS re tained

c ouns e l, w ho ind ic a te d th a t a re sp on se to the July 27 le tte r c ou ld no t be pr e pa re d b y July 30 . O n July 31, 2009, CFS wrote to Petitioners’ c ounsel and ag ain ref used to produce the documents be cause of the claimed pr ivilege s. See Pet’rs Mot. at 4-5.

Petitioners filed a motion for contempt on Aug ust 4, 2009. See Dk t. # 5. On Au g us t 18, 2009, CFS filed an opposition to the motion for conte mpt and a motion for re consideration of th e C o u rt ’s Or d er c ompelling CF S to respond to the subpoena, see Dkt. # 6, to which Petitioners have r esponded. F or the re asons set for th below, the Court will gr ant Petitioner s ’ m otion for contempt and de ny

CFS’s motion for rec onsideration.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 45 (e ) s tates : “ Th e iss uin g c ourt may ho ld i n contempt a pe rson who, havingbeen se rved, f ails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena .” F e d. R. C iv. P. 4 5( e ). F ur the rm or e , “ ‘[t ]he po we r to pun ish fo r c on te mpt s is inh e re nt i n a ll c ourt s; its e x istence is e ssential to .

. . the enfor ceme nt of the judgme nts, or ders, a nd writs of the c ourts, and conseque ntly

to the due administration of justice.’” Broderick v. Donaldson , 437 F.3d 1226, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Ex parte Robinson, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 505, 510 (1874))

. As another court in this di strict has re cog nized,

[f]e d e r a l c o u rto r d e r s ar e t o b e o b e y e d u n l e s s an d

u n t i l l i t i g an ts succe ed in ha

ving them duly overturne d by the appropr iate c o u rt of appea ls. L itigants may not defy court orders bec ause the ir commands are no t to the lit ig ants ’ lik ing . I f the ru le of law is to be up he ld, it i s e sse nti a l tha t the jud ic iary take s f ir m a c tio n to vin dic a te its a uth or ity and to compel c ompliance with lawf ully issued direc tives.-4-

Am . R iv e rs v . A rm

yCor ps of E ng ’r s , 274 F. Supp. 2d 62, 70 (D.D .C. 2003). Court s e mploy civ il c on te mpt sanc tio ns “ ‘f

or e ith e r o r b oth

of tw o p ur po se s: t o

coer ce the defe ndant into c ompliance with the court’s order , and to compensate the complaina nt for losses sustained.’” Sheet M etal W orkers v . EEOC , 4 7 8 U. S

. 4 2 1 , 4 4 3 (1 9 8 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. United Mine W

orkers of Am. , 33 0 U. S. 2 58 , 3 03 -0 4 ( 19 47 )) . “ Un lik e dis c ov e ry sa nc tio ns , c ivi l contempt san ct i o n s m ay not be punitive – they

must be calibrated to coer ce c ompliance or compensate a complainant for losses sustained.” In re Fannie Mae Se cs. Litig. , 552 F.3d 814, 823 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

A c ivi l c on te mpt

pr oc e e din g ty

pic a lly inv olv e s th re e dis tin c t st e ps : (1) issuanc e of a

n o rd er ; (2) f

ollowing disobedie nce of that order , iss ua nc e of a c on dit ion a l or de r f

ind ingthe re c a lc itr ant par ty in contempt and thre ateningto impose a specif i ed penalty

unless the re c a lc itr ant p art

y purg e s it se lf

of c ontem pt by

c omp lyingwi th presc ribed purg ati o n co n ditions; and (3) exaction of the threa tened penalty if the purg ation conditions are not f ulfilled. NLRB v. Blevins Popcorn Co. , 659 F.2d 1173, 1184 (D.C. C ir. 1981). Be cause of their c onditional nature , civil contempt sanctions may be im posed i n an ordinary civil proce eding upon notice and a n opportunity to be heard and do not require a jury trial or proof

bey ond a re asonable doubt. United Mi ne W or k e rs o f A m. v . B ag

we ll , 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994). I n seeking civil c o n te mp t s an c ti o n s , a p la in ti f f n e e d o n ly s h o w , by

clea r and convincing evidenc e, (1) the ex istence of a reasonably clea r and unambig uous court order a nd (2)

a violation of that order

by the def endant. See B roderick, 437 F .3 d at 1 23 4; Lee v. D ep’t of Justice , 401 F. Supp. 2d 123, 131 (D.D.C. 2005). The defe ndant’s “fa ilure to c omply with the court de cre e need not be intentional.” Blevins Popc orn Co. , 6 59 F .2 d at 11 83 ; se e als o M c Com b v . J

ac k so nv ill e P a per Co. , 3 3 6 U

. S

. 1 8 7 , 1 9 1 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ( “ T h e a b s e n c e o f w i l l f

u l n e s s d o e s n o t r e l i e v e f r o m c ivi l-5-

contempt . . .

. Since t he purpose is reme dial, it matters not with what intent the def endant did the prohibited ac t.”).

A def endant may

attempt to justi fy

its failur e to comply

with the court’s or der by

e sta bli sh ing e ith e r an ina

bil ity to co mpl y

wi th t he or de r o r g oo d f

a ithsu bs tanti a l c omp lia

nc e wi th th e o r der. Food Lion, Inc. v. United F ood and Commercial W

orkers Int’ l Union , 103 F.3d 1007, 10 17 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 7) ; SEC v. Bilzerian , 112 F. Supp. 2d 12, 16-17 (D.D.C. 2000). The de fenda nt must demonstrate an ina

bility to comply

“categ orical l y an d in detail.” SEC v. Banke rs Alliance Corp. , 881 F. Supp. 673, 678 (D.D.C. 1995) (interna l quotations and citations omitt ed). Contempt may still be appr opriate e ven whe n compliance is difficult; the contemnor must show that it has done

ever y thing in its power to comply with the court’s or der. Pigford v. Vene man , 307 F. Supp. 2d 51, 57 (D .D .C. 20 04 ). To pr ov e g oo d f a ithsu bs tant ial co mpl ianc e , a

pa rt y mus t de mon str a te that it “took all re asonable steps within its power to comply

with the court’s or der.” Food Lion, Inc. , 103 F.3d at 1017 (internal quotations omitted). Althoug h it may be a f actor in determining whether

a party has substantially

complied, g ood faith alone is not sufficient to excuse contempt. Id. at 1017- 18. III . A NA LY SIS

The problem befor e the Court orig inates in part f rom the fa ct that Mr. Kimbre ll is an

a tto rn e y , a dmi tte d to pr a c tic e in P e nn sylva nia , b ut n ot p ra c tic inglaw a s E xec uti ve Di re c tor of CF S, not admitted t o t h e Ba r of the D istrict of Columbia, not practicing law in this jurisdiction, and

cer tainly not prac ticing as a trial law y er. Counsel for the Geor g ia Plaintiffs have a ppare ntly treated him a s o ne of

the m, s ha

ri nginfo rm ati on and

str a te g ie s b a c k a

nd fo rt h. Pe tit ion e rs argue that, beca use CFS is a non-pr ofit org anization and not a law f irm nor a pa

rty to th e Georg ia ac tion, theEx hibit A t o P et i t i o n er s ’ Reply brief de monstrates that CFS was se rved in pe rson at its office 3 located a t 660 Pennsy lvania Ave SE, Sui te 302, Washington, D.C. 20003, on April 30, 2009, at 11 :13 a .m. -6- Ge ro g ia Pla int if fs have wa ive d a

ny pr ivi le g e s b y

sh ari ngdo c ume nts and

c omm un ic a tio ns wi th CFS’s executive direc tor and also waived any privileg es by

not responding proper ly

to the subpoena. CF S c on c e de s th a t it did no t re sp on d to Pe tit ion e rs ’ mot ion to c omp e l, t hat it sh ou ld have pr oduced a

privile ge l og when it objecte d to the scope of the subpoena

initially , and that the privileg e log it eventually provided, a fter the Court’s Orde r, wa s inadequate. See CFS Mem. at 2, 5, & 10 . H ow e ve r, to a

vo id b e inghe ld in c on te mpt , it argue s tha t the su bp oe na wa s in va lid

be c a us e it was delivere d by

U.S. mail and not in person and that it de manded that the documents be delivere d to counsel’s off

ice in Atlanta, mor e than 100 miles from D.C. I t also argues that the doc uments are pr ote c te d b y

pr ivi le g e s h e ld b y

the Ge or g ia

Pla int if fs and the ir lawy e rs , who are no t eve n b e fo re thi s Cou rt

. T h u s , C F S s u

b m i t s “ t h a tt h e a

p p r o p r i a t e c o u r s e i s t o r e c o n s i d e r an d v a c a t e t h e o r d e r

to compel, to deny

Petitioners’ motion for contempt and to r equire the parties in this proceedingto meet and conf er in a n attempt to reduc e or e liminate their discover y dispute.” CFS Mem. at 2-3. Couns e l f or CF S argue s th a t ( 1) the su bp oe na wa s only “ se rv e d” by ma il a nd , th us , was improper

under F eder al Rule of Civil Procedur e 45, and (2) that Petitioners did not serve a c opy of the subpoena

on the Geor g ia Plaintiffs at all, as re quired by the Rule. Thus, he c ontend s , the subpoena c annot be e nforc ed and it is not in contempt. Unfortunately for c ounsel to CFS, he has not been in f ull command of events that occur red befor e he w as re tained. CFS wa s proper ly serve d, see Pet’rs Reply , Ex . A (Af

fidavit of Servic e), and the Geor g ia P laintiffs wer e copie d. See P e t ’ r s R e p l y, 3 Ex

. B (Copy of Subpoena, sent via ema il to Georg ia Plaintiffs’ counse l). I t is insufficient to arg ue that the Geor g ia Plaintiffs are not before this Court. The Georg ia Plaintiffs knew of the subpoena-7-

and what i t s o u gh t and also kne w of the motion to compel and, to some de g ree , spoke with Mr. Kimbrell about a r esponse to it.

Counsel’s argument that the subpoena is invalid because it requires CF S to produce do c ume nts a t a

loc a tio n “ we ll o ve r t

he 10 0 mi le lim it s e t f

or th i n Ru le 45 (c )( 3) (A )(i i) ” al so is fl awe d; t he 10 0 mi le lim it a

pp lie s to tr a ve l by

a su bp oe na e d p e rs on , b ut a

perso n c omm and e d to produce documents “ne ed not appe ar in pe rson at the plac e of production or inspection.” See Fe d. R. Civ. P . 45(c) (2)( A). The subpoena c an be e nforc ed.

And it must be. CFS arg ues that i t is inappropriate to rea ch this conclusion and penalize the Ge org ia Plaintiffs when they are not be fore the Court. Their absenc e is their choice , as it ha s b e e ns i n c e t h i s m a t t e r w a s f i l e d

. R u l e 4 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) r e qu i r e s a

p art y w i t h h o l d i n g d o c u m e n ts

re qu e ste d und e r a

su bp oe na on the ba sis of

pr ivi le g e to “ de sc ri be the n a tur e of the wi thh e ld do c ume nts

. . . in

a mann e r t hat, w ith ou t r e ve a lin g inf or ma tio n it se lf

pr ivi le g e d o r p ro te cte d, wi ll enable the par

ties to assess the cla im.” Fe d. R. Civ. P. 45(d)( 2)(A) (ii). The G eorg ia Plaintiffs, along wi th C F S, ha d nume ro us op po rt un iti e s to ass e rt the ir c la ims of pr ivi le g e s and

pr od uc e an a de qu a te privileg e log befor e the Court ente red it s o rd er co m pelling pr oduction, and they failed to do so. Thus, they

have w aived their

claims to privileg e. See D orf & Stanton Communications v. Molson Breweries, 1 0 0 F. 3 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 3 (F ed

. C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) (f i n d i n g t h at P l ai n t i ff wa i v edi t s cl ai m t o p ri v i l ege when it produc ed two privileg e log s containing insufficient de tail to establish privilege but failed,

even a fter a

court orde r compe lling produc tion, to provide an adequate privileg e log a s require d by the l ocal civil rules and Fe dera l Rule 45(d)(2) ); In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 274 F.3d 563, 575- 76 (1 st Cir . 200 1) (“ Th e op e rativ e langua g e [of Rul e 45 (d )( 2) ] is mand a tor y . . . . A p art

y tha t f a ils to submit a privilege log is de emed to wa ive the under ly ing privileg e cla im.”); Ba nks v. Offic e of the-8-

Senate Ser g eant- At-Arms & Doorkeepe r, 233 F.R.D. 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2005) (findingthat a par ty who failed to a ssert attorney -client privileg e until af ter the close of

discovery

and af ter it had submitted its privilege log w aived its claim of pr ivilege ).

On these f

acts, wher e CFS has failed to obe y a subpoena a nd, on top of that, violated

a sp e c ific court

or de r w ith ou t le g a l ba sis , th e Cou rt fi nd s th a t CF S is i n c ivi l c on te mpt . T hu s, Petitioners’ motion for contempt will be g rante d and CFS’s m o tion for re consideration will be denied. The Court will order CFS to produce the subpoenae d documents no later than Novembe r 16, 2009. I f CFS fa ils to do so it will be sanc tioned $1,000.00, pay able to the Clerk of Court, and $1 00 .0 0 f or e a c h d ay

of no n- c omp lia

nc e the re a ft e r. A m e mor ia lizin g ord er a c c omp anie s th is memorandum opinion.

Date : N ov e mbe r 5 , 2 00 9 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge