United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Anthony Smith ("Smith"), Comcast Cable Communications LLC and Comcast Corporate Representative #1 (together, "Comcast"), and SBC Internet Services, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Internet Services' ("AT&T") (collectively "defendants") joint motion for contempt, or in the alternative, for an order to plaintiff's counsel to show cause why they each should not be held in contempt (Doc. 107). Plaintiff's counsel Paul Duffy ("Duffy") and Paul Hansmeier ("Hansmeier") responded (Docs. 111, 113). At the direction of the Court (Docs. 112, 117), defendants filed a reply (Doc. 119). On February 13, 2014, the Court held a hearing on the issues (Doc. 123). For the following reasons, the defendants' motion will be GRANTED.
On December 14, 2011, Lightspeed Media Corporation ("Lightspeed") filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in St. Clair County. Lightspeed owns or operates one or more paid-subscription adult entertainment websites. In its first complaint, Lightspeed alleged that John Doe and more than 6, 600 "co-conspirators" had gained unauthorized access to its website. On December 16, 2011, the circuit court granted an ex parte motion for leave to obtain discovery by subpoena, from dozens of Internet Service Providers ("ISPs"), of information personally identifying the defendants. AT&T and Comcast subsequently filed motions to quash the subpoenas and/or for a protective order. On May 22, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court directed the circuit court to vacate its order denying the motion to quash.
On August 3, 2012, Lightspeed filed an amended complaint. Lightspeed contended that Smith accessed content from Lightspeed's password-protected websites without authorization. Lightspeed asserted that AT&T and Comcast improperly opposed Lightspeed's discovery, failed to act to protect Lightspeed's websites, and conspired with their customers to Lightspeed's detriment. Specifically, Lightspeed alleged 10 Counts: Computer Fraud and Abuse (Count I), Conversion (Count II), Unjust Enrichment (Count III), Unjust Enrichment (Count IV), Count V (Breach of Contract), Civil Conspiracy (Count VI), Civil Conspiracy (Count VII), Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (Count VIII), Aiding and Abetting (Count X). AT&T removed this action to federal court on August 9, 2012.
Plaintiff thereafter filed an emergency motion for Discovery prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference (Doc. 9) requesting the ISP information. Judge G. Patrick Murphy held a hearing on the issue and denied the motion (Doc. 23). Defendants each filed motions to dismiss (Docs. 26, 28, 36). Prior to the resolution of the motions to dismiss, Lightspeed entered a notice of voluntary dismissal on March 21, 2013. Defendants subsequently moved for attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (Docs. 61, 78, 82). Judge Murphy granted Defendant Smith's motion (Doc. 65) and counsel (Duffy, Hansmeier, and John Steele ("Steele")) sought reconsideration of that order (Docs. 66, 68, 74). On November 13, 2013, Judge Murphy held a hearing on the motions for reconsideration and the motions for attorney's fees by ComCast and AT&T (Doc. 96) in which he deferred ruling.
On November 27, 2013, Judge Murphy denied the motions to vacate, or in the alternative, reconsider the order granting Smith's motion for attorney fees, granted ComCast's and AT&T's motions for attorney's fees, and ordered that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Duffy, Hansmeier, and Steele are jointly and severally liable, and shall pay within 14 days of the order (December 11, 2013), attorney fees and costs to Smith in the amount of $72, 367.00, to AT&T in the amount of $119, 637.05, and to ComCast in the amount of $69, 021.26 for a total judgment of $261, 00252.11 with interest as provided by law (Doc. 100). Duffy, Hansmeier, and Steele filed a notice of Appeal on December 12, 2013.
On December 27, 2013, defendants filed a joint motion for contempt, or in the alternative, for an order to plaintiffs' counsel to show cause why they each should not be held in contempt (Doc. 107). Plaintiff's counsel Duffy and Hansmeier responded (Doc. 111, 113), Steele filed a motion to stay the sanction's order (Doc. 114), and, at the direction of the Court (Docs. 112, 118), defendants filed a reply (Doc. 119).
Defendants request 1) an order holding in contempt plaintiffs' counsel Steele, Duffy, and Hansmeier or, in the alternative, 2) an order requiring Duffy, Hansmeier and Steele to show cause why they should not each be held in contempt for their failure to timely comply with the fee order. In their reply, defendants focus on the contempt. They specifically request that this Court hold Duffy, Hansmeier and Steele in contempt of Court, and also order them to pay the defendants attorneys' fees incurred in seeking this finding of contempt, along with interest and additional daily fines for each day the sanctioned attorneys fail to make any and all payment(s) ordered.
Plaintiff's counsels' responses assert three points: (1) defendants have not submitted any evidence regarding compliance (Doc. 113 at 2), (2) the order is a money judgment and therefore not properly enforceable through contempt proceedings (Doc. 111 at 3-5; Doc. 113 at 2-4), and (3) defendants have otherwise failed to establish the elements of civil contempt (Doc. 111 at 5-6). Hansmeier further asserts that in the alternative, the Court should grant plaintiff's counsel leave to seek a stay of the November 27, 2013 order (Doc. 113 at 4-6).
The Court held a hearing on defendants' motion for contempt on February 13, 2014 (Doc. 124). During the proceedings, plaintiff's counsel admitted on the record to noncompliance, each stating that they had not paid the sanction amount to defendants or otherwise sought a supersedeas bond. The Court also addressed plaintiff's counsels' argument that the Court should consider the sanctions order as a money judgment, concluding that the Court's order was not a money judgment but instead a sanctions order. The Court deferred ruling on the motion for contempt and directed plaintiff's counsel to file asset statements from a certified public accountant on or before February 24, 2014. The Court also considered Steele's motion to stay (Doc. 114) and heard arguments from the parties. The Court denied Steele's motion to stay on the record and addressed and similarly dismissed Hansmeier's stay request (Doc. 124).
A. Civil Contempt
Federal courts have both inherent and statutory authority to punish for contempt and to coerce compliance with their orders. International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831-833 (1994). To prevail on a request for a contempt finding, the moving party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) a court order sets forth an unambiguous command; (2) the alleged contemnor violated that command; (3) the violation was significant, meaning the alleged contemnor did not substantially comply with the order; and (4) ...