Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FTC v. GLOBAL WEB

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


August 9, 2004.

FTC
v.
Global Web, et al.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARVIN ASPEN, Chief Judge, District

ORDER

At the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a rule to show cause, Global Poly's counsel made clear that Global Poly does not intend to comply with certain of the production requirements set forth in Paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction. In addition, Global Poly's counsel failed to offer any evidence or argument showing good cause for Global Poly's failure to comply with those requirements — which, the Court emphasizes, were requirements to which Global Poly agreed when the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction was entered. There is no dispute that, as a result of Global Poly's disregard of certain of its production requirements under the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction, the plaintiff will be required to seek to obtain that information through discovery.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Global Poly should be held in contempt. While ordinarily the first step in reaching such a finding would be the issuance of a rule to show cause, with Global Poly then having an opportunity to come to court to explain why it should not be held in contempt, the Court finds that a contempt order should be entered without further delay. Global Poly's counsel agreed that a separate hearing at which Global Poly would explain why it should not be held in contempt is unnecessary here: Global Poly's counsel has made clear that Global Poly is determined to disregard certain of its obligations under Paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction, and has no explanation to offer in support of that decision that would show good cause for avoiding a contempt order.

  As a result of that contempt, the Court further concludes that an appropriate sanction at this time would be for Global Poly to bear all attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the plaintiff (a) in filing and appearing on this motion, and (b) in obtaining, through discovery, the information that Global Poly agreed to produce and was obligated by court order to produce. In concluding that this sanction is appropriate at this time, the Court foreclose the possibility that other, merits-based sanctions (such as issue-preclusion or default) may be appropriate at a later date if the plaintiff is unable to obtain through discovery the information that Global Poly has refused to provide.

20040809

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.