Court Opinion

ID: 9446030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:44:25.454653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:15.918357
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I would affirm the judgment in all respects.
I agree with Judge HAND and Judge HINCKS in what they say about the award of $2,500 as reimbursement for costs and expenses and the award of $2,500 for each future violation.
As to the fine of $1,000 for past disobedience, it seems to me that the District Court had the power to impose a fine which would approximate the probable damages. Although it is impossible in cases such as this to say what the loss to the plaintiff has been, the authorities seem to support the view that it is enough to show the profits which the contemnor made and to award such amount. Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 1932, 284 U.S. 448, 455, 52 S.Ct. 238, 76 L.Ed. 389; United States v. Aberbach, 2 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 713, 715.
Here there is a further difficulty because the defendant by its own calculated and deliberate action of systematically destroying all records relating to these prohibited sales made it virtually impossible for the plaintiff to produce any *473proof of the extent of defendant’s profits from such sales. The goods were purchased from various wholesalers of the plaintiff. So far as appears from the record the only way in which the plaintiff •could have secured any evidence of defendant’s sales would have been to conduct an examination of the accounts of scores of its wholesale customers in the New York area. To require such effort and expense merely because the defendant has destroyed the evidence would place a wholly disproportionate burden -on the plaintiff.
As it is we do have proof that on five separate occasions during November and December 1956, buyers employed by the plaintiff did purchase articles from defendant at prices more than 20% off retail list, and therefore in violation of the law. We also know that the gross profit to Golden Rule on one of the sales was in excess of four dollars.1 In view of the fact that the defendant was a discount house operating on the basis of volume selling, it is not unreasonable to conclude that hundreds of such sales were made. Thus the award of $1,000 seems to me, in the circumstances, to be a reasonable estimate.
Moreover, it is clear that the defendant counted on having to pay fines and awards as the necessary and expected expense of running a business which was constantly in contempt of judicial admonitions. Obviously the fact that Golden Rule might be required to pay $250 for each violation under the New York law was no deterrent but merely reduced by that much the profit which it made. Nor did the fact that Golden Rule had previously been adjudged in contempt eighteen times, presumably an expensive procedure entailing not only court costs but attorney’s fees, deter the defendant from a continuance of these activities. A business which can assume such costs and expenses and yet continue merrily on its campaign of calculated contempt cannot be heard to complain that a federal court is without power to assess damages of $1,000 when it has deliberately destroyed the only reasonable means of arriving at a more exact assessment. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Material Co., 1927, 273 U.S. 359, 379, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed. 684.
For these reasons I would affirm the District Court award of $1,000.

. Petitioner’s Exhibit 10 and the affidavit of Henrietta Faerber with reference to a Sunbeam Coffeemaster.