Opinion ID: 666596
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clarity of the original order.

Text: 20 Holding a party in contempt is only appropriate if the court can point to a decree from the court which 'set[s] forth in specific detail an unequivocal command' which the party violated. Ferrell, 785 F.2d at 1378 (quoting H.K. Porter Co. v. National Friction Prods., 568 F.2d 24, 27 (7th Cir.1977)). The court's orders of October 22, 1992 instructed Berg to 21 appear at 9:00 am, on November 16, 1992, at the offices of the Internal Revenue Service [specific address provided], then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce the books, records, papers, and other data as demanded by the summonses served upon him for examination and copying by photographic or other mechanical means of reproduction, with such examination and copying to continue from day to day until completed. 22 The summonses referenced in those orders, one pertaining to PDI and PDL and one pertaining to the Elmhurst Friends Meeting, each provided even more detailed descriptions and lists of the documents Berg was to produce. Berg now claims that the summonses and the orders were vague and he could not be expected to comply with them. Most of Berg's objections are frivolous. He contends that the orders did not specify by what date the Service had to complete its review of the documents, what would happen to the Service if it failed to cooperate with Berg, or what would happen to Berg if he failed to comply. None of those factors even remotely affects the clarity of the order's mandate that Berg was to appear and produce documents. 23 Furthermore, we will not entertain an argument concerning the clarity of the orders as they pertain to PDI and PDL because Berg had in fact assembled those documents but simply refused to turn them over to the Service. The fact that he actually compiled the required materials renders moot any argument that an ambiguity in the order prevented him from complying. 24 Regarding the Elmhurst Friends Meeting, the summons required Berg to produce, among other things, all canceled checks. Berg instead produced copies of only the front sides of canceled checks. Six days after the court entered its contempt order, Berg finally produced the checks themselves. Because of the six day delay, the court fined him $3,000 ($500 per day). He now claims that the contempt order was improper because he could not have known that he was required to provide the original canceled checks. The summons, referred to in the order, specifically required Berg to produce all canceled checks so the Service could copy them. A copy of only one side of a canceled check is not, under any definition or interpretation, the same as a canceled check itself. No reasonable person could think that producing a copy of one portion of a document could satisfy his duty to produce that document. We reject Berg's argument that the orders were unclear. 25