Opinion ID: 220657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Donald Bowers' efforts to comply with the district court's orders

Text: In his fourth and final challenge to the district court's contempt findings, Donald Bowers asserts that he complied with the district court's discovery and disclosure requests to the best of his ability, and thus [i]t was wholly unethical for Clear One or the [district court] to punish [him] simply because the information he provided them did not meet with their subjective approval. Aplt. Br. at 45. Consequently, he argues, the district court should have absolved [him] of contempt once his disclosures were made and once he had shown that he had made a good faith effort to contact Longoo Corp., and it abused its discretion by continuing to hold [him] in contempt and by issuing a bench warrant against him. Id. at 45-46. These arguments are meritless. To begin with, Donald Bowers never identifies with any specificity what efforts he took to comply with the district court's discovery and disclosure requests. And, in any event, the record on appeal refutes his assertion that he tried to the best of his ability to comply with the district court's orders. For example, the district court, in its August 13, 2010 order of contempt, found that Donald Bowers violate[d] the court's prohibition on possession, disclosure, use, marketing, or selling products containing ClearOne's stolen trade secret and the court's prohibition on diversion of Defendant WideBand['s] ... assets. JA at D23424. In addition, the district court found that Donald Bowers committed fraud on the court by making false statements to the court and withholding material information from the court in a manner obstructing the court's ability to enforce its orders and final judgment against the WideBand Defendants. Id. at D23424-25. Notably, Donald Bowers makes no attempt to directly refute these findings.