Opinion ID: 26606
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sanctions for Violations of Court Orders

Text: Relying on the magistrate judge’s factual findings and recommendations, the district court sanctioned Lyn-Lea and Stephen Gardner, Lyn-Lea’s counsel, for violating three protective orders relating to confidential documents obtained during discovery. The magistrate judge found that Stephen Sedgewick, President of Lyn- Lea, had violated the protective orders by revealing the contents of sealed documents to the press. This finding was based on Sedgewick’s own testimony.14 The magistrate judge also recommended a finding of contempt against Gardner for filing a complaint with the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) that quoted portions of the sealed documents and thus expressly violated the court’s June 3, 1998 protective order. Gardner acknowledged his inadvertent violation of this order. The magistrate judge recommended entry of a sanction of $18,404 against Lyn-Lea and Gardner, jointly and severally, “which amount is the total of all the costs, attorneys’ 13 Sabre urges this court to hold that summary judgment should have been granted against Lyn-Lea’s fraud claims, whether raised affirmatively or defensively. The magistrate judge did not address the merits of this issue. It is prudent to remand for initial consideration in the court most familiar with this case. 14 Sedgwick admitted that he spoke with 30 or 40 reporters during the course of this litigation. Sedgwick was quoted in one publication regarding the contents of sealed documents, and Sedgwick acknowledged making such statements. 15 fees and expenses incurred by Defendants in attempting to obtain the compliance of Plaintiff and its representatives with the terms of the protective orders . . . .” Following review of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and a de novo hearing, the district court found Lyn-Lea and Gardner in contempt and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Lyn-Lea argues that the district court erred in characterizing the contempt orders as civil rather than criminal in nature. Criminal contempt proceedings require heightened notice and proof, which Lyn-Lea contends were not satisfied in this case. Even if the contempt proceeding is civil in nature, Lyn-Lea argues that the contempt order is not supported by sufficient evidence. Finally, Lyn-Lea contends that it was error to find Gardner jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the contempt award in light of his limited role in the contemptuous conduct. A contempt order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. FDIC v. LeGrand, 43 F.3d 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1995). A contempt order is civil in nature if the purpose of the order is (1) to coerce compliance with a court order or (2) to compensate a party for losses sustained as a result of the contemnor’s actions. Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217, 227 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 829, 114 S.Ct. 2552 (1994)). The contempt award entered by the district 16 court was intended to compensate Appellees for the costs they incurred in attempting to obtain Lyn-Lea’s compliance with the court’s protective orders. Therefore, the challenged order is civil in nature, and the heightened procedural requirements attendant to a criminal contempt proceeding are inapplicable. A party seeking a civil contempt order must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, “(1) that a court order was in effect, (2) that the order required certain conduct by the respondent, and (3) that the respondent failed to comply with the court’s order.” LeGrand, 43 F.3d at 170 (citing Martin v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992)); Whitfield v. Pennington, 832 F.2d 909, 913 (5th Cir. 1987). Lyn-Lea does not dispute that the court entered three protective orders relating to confidential documents that were in effect at the time of Sedgwick’s and Gardner’s actions. However, Lyn-Lea asserts that the orders merely prohibited disclosure of the confidential documents but did not prohibit disclosure of the contents of such documents. Lyn-Lea argues that there is insufficient evidence supporting the contempt order because Appellees “declined to identify a single confidential document disclosed in Lyn-Lea’s discussions with the press.” Lyn-Lea’s argument is disingenuous. The magistrate judge rejected this argument in her contempt findings, correctly reasoning that Lyn-Lea’s reading of the protective orders would 17 render them a nullity. The court’s protective orders prohibited the use of the confidential documents for any purpose outside of the litigation, thereby prohibiting revelation of the documents’ contents as much as their existence. Sedgwick’s and Garner’s admissions constitute clear and convincing evidence that Lyn-Lea and Gardner violated the court’s protective orders. The district court did not abuse its discretion by entry of the contempt order.