SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 9
Download to read offline
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Howard K. Stern, as Executor of the )
Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, )
a/k/a Vickie Lynn Smith, )
a/k/a Vickie Lynn Hogan, )
a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith, )
)
Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC
)
v. )
) OPINION AND ORDER
Stancil Shelley, a/k/a Ford Shelley, )
G. Ben Thompson, Gaither Bengene )
Thompson, II, Melanie Thompson, Gina )
Thompson Shelley, Susan M. Brown, and )
The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
Currently before the court is Plaintiff Howard K. Stern’s, Executor of the Estate of Vickie
Lynn Marshall, (“Executor”) Motion for Contempt and Sanctions [Entry #79] against Defendants
G. Ben Thompson (“Thompson”) and Susan M. Brown (“Brown”), Thompson’s former counsel in
this matter, for violation of a Consent Order Entering Preliminary Injunction [Entry #39]. The
court held a hearing on September 28, 2010. After hearing oral arguments on these motions and
considering the parties’ memorandums and the relevant evidence in the record of this case, the court
will grant in part and deny in part Executor’s Motion for Contempt and Sanctions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 1 of 9
2
Executor originally brought this action on August 4, 2008, against Stancil “Ford” Shelley
(“Shelley”) and Thompson alleging that Shelley and Thompson wrongfully removed and retained
personal property of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall from the residence known as “Horizons,”
located in the Bahamas, after Ms. Marshall’s death. The action was subsequently amended to join
Gaither Bengene Thompson, II, Melanie Thompson, Gina Thompson Shelley, and Susan M. Brown
and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. (the “Law Firm”) as party defendants. Brown and
the Law Firm served as counsel to Thompson and Shelley in the early stages of this matter. Prior
to filing the lawsuit, Executor repeatedly requested the return of all Estate property from Brown and
Thompson, which would have included the property specifically at issue in this motion for contempt
and sanctions.
In response to Executor’s requests, Brown delivered certain property to Executor’s counsel
in November 2007. The property delivered to counsel at that time did not include two external hard
drives Brown had received from her client, Shelley. While the hard drives were in Brown’s
possession, she allegedly permitted Shelley to have access to themand allegedly transferred the hard
drives to The O’Quinn Law Firm for forensic analysis under the auspices of a Common Interest and
Confidentiality Agreement. Subsequent to the initial production of property, Executor became
aware of the existence of the external hard drives. Executor demanded the hard drives be provided
to his counsel.
In an effort to prevent further dissemination and disclosure of the Estate property, Executor
sought a temporary restraining order from this court. After conducting a hearing on the matter, on
January 16, 2009, this court entered a Consent Order Entering Preliminary Injunction (“Consent
Order”). Brown did not object to the entry of the order and made no representation to the court
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 2 of 9
3
regarding her possession or custody of any Estate property other than two external hard drives that
contained copies of alleged Estate property. Brown relinquished possession of the external hard
drives to Executor’s counsel within the time designated by the Consent Order.
Several months thereafter, Executor learned that Brown’s role in the possession and
distribution of the alleged Estate property was potentially more extensive than originally suspected.
Therefore, Executor sought further discovery from Brown as to her actions through a subpoena to
appear at a deposition and to produce documents. Brown sought to quash the subpoena in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Northern District Court of
Georgia denied Brown’s request to quash the subpoena, but modified the subpoena to preserve
attorney-client and work product privileges. See Order, Stern v. Shelley, et al., Civil Action No.
3:09-cv-00082-JTC-RGV (N.D. Ga., October 28, 2009). During the discovery and production of
documents subject to the subpoena, Brown produced additional copies of photographs and legal
documents which Executor considered to be Estate property.
Executor filed this motion for contempt and for sanctions on the grounds that Brown’s
retention and belated production of copies of the alleged Estate property constitutes a violation of
the Consent Order.
LEGAL STANDARD
To hold a party in civil contempt, the following four elements must be established by clear
and convincing evidence: (1) the existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor had
actual or constructive knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the movant’s “favor”; (3) that the
alleged contemnor by its conduct violated the terms of the decree, and had knowledge (at least
constructive knowledge) of such violation; and (4) that the movant suffered harm as a result. See
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 3 of 9
4
Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000). A court may impose sanctions for civil
contempt “to coerce obedience to a court order or to compensate the complainant for losses
sustained as a result of the contumacy.” In re General Motors Corp., 61 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir.
1995). The appropriate sanctions to be imposed for civil contempt lie within the court’s broad
discretion. Id. at 259. However, “a compensatory sanction ‘may not exceed the actual loss to the
complainant caused by the actions of respondent, lest the contempt fine become punitive in nature,
which is not appropriate in a civil contempt proceeding.’” Id. (Internal citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
I. Contempt Against Brown
Executor argues that Brown should be held in contempt for retaining copies of Estate
property after the entry of the Consent Order. This court agrees that Executor has demonstrated by
clear and convincing evidence that Brown violated the specific and unequivocal commands of the
Consent Order. In that order, the court stated:
At or before 5:00 p.m. on the fifth business day after entry of this Consent Order
Entering Preliminary Injunction, Susan M. Brown, attorney for Defendant G. Ben
Thompson, shall deliver to the Executor’s attorneys at Bryan Cave Powell
Goldstein, One Atlantic Center – FourteenthFloor, 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309, any of the Property belonging to the Estate which is in
Ms. Brown’s possession or custody, including all originals and all duplicates of
such Property, specifically including but not limited to the two (2) hard drives
belonging to the Estate which are in Ms. Brown’s possession.
See Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction, at 2-3 (Emphasis added). The order clearly and
unambiguously commanded Brown to deliver to Executor both original and duplicates of any
potential Estate property. By demonstrating that Brown retained duplicates of the photographs
stored on the hard drives and duplicates of legal documents which were subject to the Consent
Order, Executor has met his burden to warrant a finding of contempt against Brown.
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 4 of 9
5
Brown, however, asks this court to excuse her violation of the Consent Order because she
contends that any violation of the Consent Order was unintentional. Brown insists that she only
discovered the duplicates on her computer around the same time as she was served with a subpoena
for discovery concerning her involvement in the dissemination of Estate property and that she
voluntarily provided those duplicates to the Executor in compliance with the Consent Order when
they came to her attention. As further support for her position, Brown also submits that she went
above and beyond the requirements of the Consent Order by giving her entire computer to Executor
for destruction.
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplates that a party will conduct a
diligent search for documents responsive to a request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. It is only reasonable
to require this same level of responsibility from parties in complying with orders of the court
requiring the production of documents. It is clear from Brown’s testimony that she did not meet the
requirements of Rule 34 because a simple search of her computer would have revealed the existence
of the images subject to production under the Consent Order. Additionally, civil contempt does not
require a showing of wilfulness. In re General Motors Corp., 61 F.3d at 258. Therefore, this court
declines to accept Brown’s argument that any violation was unintentional and finds Brown in
contempt of the January 16, 2009, Consent Order of this court.
II. Contempt Against Thompson
Executor contends that if this court finds Brown in contempt, it necessarily must find
Thompson in contempt because Brown was acting as Thompson’s counsel at the time of her
violation of the Consent Order. Interestingly, Executor admitted during the hearing on the matter
that he has no independent basis upon which to charge Thompson with contempt.
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 5 of 9
6
In this case, there is no indication that Brown’s violation of the Consent Order was suborned
by any conduct attributable to Thompson. In fact, the record is replete with contradictory testimony
and assertions from Brown and Thompson as to the extent of Thompson’s knowledge of Brown’s
possession of the property or her disclosure of the property to third parties. Without some showing
of a violation on Thompson’s part, this court is hesitant to impose sanctions upon him simply on the
basis that Brown was his attorney. This is particularly true where Brown now finds herself a named
defendant in the underlying action.
Executor cites many circumstances in which a client may be held liable for the actions of his
or her attorney. However, none of the cases cited by Executor addresses the subject of contempt.
Moreover, this court has not found any case mandating a finding of contempt against a client for the
exclusive actions of counsel. Absent any citation of authority to the contrary, this court is not
convinced that a finding of contempt against Thompson is mandatory. Instead, the court defers to
its well-established discretionary authority in contempt matters and finds that Executor has not met
the burden of showing Thompson’s violation of the Consent Order by clear and convincing
evidence. Therefore, Executor’s motion for contempt as to Thompson is denied.
III. Sanctions
Having found Brown in contempt, this court must now determine if sanctions against Brown
are warranted. Executor requests the following sanctions:
A. Striking Ben Thompson’s defenses to the Executor’s Complaint;
B. Entering judgment in favor of the Executor on his Complaint as against Ben
Thompson;
C. Awarding the Executor all of his expenses and reasonable and necessary
attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of the violation of the Order, including but not
limited to fees incurred through discovery concerning the Property held by Brown
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 6 of 9
7
in violation of the Order, attempts to retrieve the Property, and efforts taken to ensure
the destruction of Brown’s hard drive;
D. Ordering Ben Thompson and Brown to immediately turn over to the Executor’s
attorneys all property belonging to the Estate – including all originals; and
E. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
See Executor’s Motion for Contempt and Sanctions, at 2-3.
The remediesandsanctionsforcivilcontemptare intended to be remedial and compensatory.
In re General Motors Corp., 61 F.3d at 259. Sanctions in the context of civil contempt should not
be punitive in nature. Id. Accordingly, the court will not strike Thompson’s defenses or enter
judgmentagainstThompsononExecutor’sComplaintbecausesuchremedieswouldbeundulyharsh
and punitive under the circumstances of this case. See Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U.S. 409, 413-14 (1897)
(noting that the court does not have the inherent power to strike a defendant’s answer as punishment
for contempt of court).
The court is persuaded, however, that some measure of sanctions against Brown is
appropriate here. Brown stated in her deposition that she did not produce the duplicate property
because she was unaware of its existence on her computer hard drive, although she admitted that her
clients had used her computer to show her images that were arguably Estate property. Given
Brown’s knowledge of her clients’ use of her computer to display the images, it is hard to accept that
BrownfulfilledherobligationsunderFederalRule34. Furthermore, despite Brown’s admission that
she understood the Consent Order, she also admitted during her deposition to retaining copies of the
property on her computer following her production in response to the subpoena. Even assuming that
Brown was unaware of the images on her computer prior to preparing for her deposition, she
undoubtedly was aware that she retained copies of that material in her possession after the
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 7 of 9
8
production in response to the subpoena - a direct violation of the Consent Order’s mandate to give
all duplicates to Executor’s counsel. Accordingly, the court will impose sanctions against Brown
in the form of an award of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to Executor.
Executor contends that Brown’s retention and alleged concealment of copies of Estate
property caused Executor to expend great resources 1) to enforce the Consent Order; 2) to conduct
discovery into Brown’s actions; 3) to retrieve the property; and 4) to destroy Brown’s computer once
it was secured by Executor. Executor has already sought costs and attorney’s fees in connection
with his pursuit of discovery from Brown regarding her actions and conduct in connection with the
alleged Estate property through the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
That court denied Executor’s request for costs and fees related to his pursuit of discovery from
Brown. This court will not disturb the findings of that court. However, in light of Brown’s violation
of the Consent Order, Executor is entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees related to his
pursuit of this motion for contempt only.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the court grants Executor’s motion for contempt and for sanctions against
Brown and denies Executor’s motion for contempt and for sanctions against Thompson. As a result,
Executor is entitled to recover from Brown his reasonable costs and attorney’s fees for the contempt
proceeding before this court only. From the date of this order, Executor has twenty (20) days to
submit a summary of his costs and attorney’s fees for this proceeding. Brown will have ten (10)
days to respond. The court further orders Brown and Thompson to turn over to Executor all
remaining property (originals and duplicates) belonging to the Estate in their possession, custody,
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 8 of 9
9
or control and to submit to Executor affidavits of compliance with this order within twenty (20) days
of the date hereof.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ J. Michelle Childs
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
November 12, 2010
4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 9 of 9

More Related Content

What's hot

citimortgage robo signers
citimortgage robo signerscitimortgage robo signers
citimortgage robo signers
tsimmonsia
 
Meghan Kelly Appellate Brief
Meghan Kelly Appellate Brief Meghan Kelly Appellate Brief
Meghan Kelly Appellate Brief
Meghan Kelly
 
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend Complaint
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend ComplaintBrown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend Complaint
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend Complaint
JRachelle
 
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallon
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallonMark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallon
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallon
ihatehassard
 
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISSBonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS
JRachelle
 
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
Sheri Ann Forbes
 
Doc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etc
Doc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etcDoc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etc
Doc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etc
malp2009
 

What's hot (20)

citimortgage robo signers
citimortgage robo signerscitimortgage robo signers
citimortgage robo signers
 
Meghan Kelly Appellate Brief
Meghan Kelly Appellate Brief Meghan Kelly Appellate Brief
Meghan Kelly Appellate Brief
 
Doc. 131
Doc. 131Doc. 131
Doc. 131
 
52.decl miyamotooppmotavoidlien
52.decl miyamotooppmotavoidlien52.decl miyamotooppmotavoidlien
52.decl miyamotooppmotavoidlien
 
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend Complaint
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend ComplaintBrown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend Complaint
Brown Opposition To Plaintiff Motion To Amend Complaint
 
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallon
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallonMark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallon
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallon
 
Ca2 db241675 01
Ca2 db241675 01Ca2 db241675 01
Ca2 db241675 01
 
NY Court of Appeals Motion to Accept Town of Dryden Ban Case
NY Court of Appeals Motion to Accept Town of Dryden Ban CaseNY Court of Appeals Motion to Accept Town of Dryden Ban Case
NY Court of Appeals Motion to Accept Town of Dryden Ban Case
 
B178942 sulphur v knapp petersen clarke
B178942 sulphur v knapp petersen clarkeB178942 sulphur v knapp petersen clarke
B178942 sulphur v knapp petersen clarke
 
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISSBonnie  -ORDER TO DISMISS
Bonnie -ORDER TO DISMISS
 
Master exhibit
Master exhibitMaster exhibit
Master exhibit
 
Loughman v EQT - Decision Rejecting Landowner Request to Sever Production Lea...
Loughman v EQT - Decision Rejecting Landowner Request to Sever Production Lea...Loughman v EQT - Decision Rejecting Landowner Request to Sever Production Lea...
Loughman v EQT - Decision Rejecting Landowner Request to Sever Production Lea...
 
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
20060804_Hilton_Hotels_Answering_Brief
 
FL Judgment
FL JudgmentFL Judgment
FL Judgment
 
Doc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etc
Doc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etcDoc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etc
Doc577 complaint action against officers directors legal audit etc
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
 
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSEUNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE
UNITED STATES' ABUSE OF THE 'SERIAL LITIGATOR' DEFENSE
 
Motion Reconsideration
Motion ReconsiderationMotion Reconsideration
Motion Reconsideration
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge James Nugent from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
 
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge V. Stuart Couch from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016
 

Similar to SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt

Memo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
Memo Of Support For Contempt And SanctionsMemo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
Memo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
JRachelle
 
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For SbReply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
JRachelle
 
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. BrownGEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
JRachelle
 
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant
  Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant  Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant
JRachelle
 
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
JRachelle
 
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law FirmReply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
JRachelle
 
Brown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to DismissBrown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
JRachelle
 
Case Brief InstructionsYou will prepare a Case Brief on th.docx
Case Brief InstructionsYou will prepare a Case Brief on th.docxCase Brief InstructionsYou will prepare a Case Brief on th.docx
Case Brief InstructionsYou will prepare a Case Brief on th.docx
michelljubborjudd
 
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissBrown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
JRachelle
 
Aloun farms attorneys fees order
Aloun farms attorneys fees orderAloun farms attorneys fees order
Aloun farms attorneys fees order
Honolulu Civil Beat
 
Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants
 Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants
Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants
JRachelle
 
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise Newsome
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise NewsomeJUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise Newsome
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise Newsome
VogelDenise
 
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
LegalDocs
 
HKS status report on motion for contempt
 HKS status report on motion for contempt HKS status report on motion for contempt
HKS status report on motion for contempt
JRachelle
 

Similar to SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt (20)

Memo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
Memo Of Support For Contempt And SanctionsMemo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
Memo Of Support For Contempt And Sanctions
 
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For SbReply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
Reply In Support Of Motion For Contempt For Sb
 
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. BrownGEORGIA ORDER Denying  Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
GEORGIA ORDER Denying Quash Subpoena Of S. Brown
 
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant
  Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant  Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As Defendant
 
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
Stern Response to motion to dismiss 8-20-10
 
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law FirmReply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
Reply In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Brown Law Firm
 
Brown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to DismissBrown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
Brown Memo re Motion to Dismiss
 
Case Brief InstructionsYou will prepare a Case Brief on th.docx
Case Brief InstructionsYou will prepare a Case Brief on th.docxCase Brief InstructionsYou will prepare a Case Brief on th.docx
Case Brief InstructionsYou will prepare a Case Brief on th.docx
 
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismissBrown reply memo support motion to dismiss
Brown reply memo support motion to dismiss
 
Aloun farms attorneys fees order
Aloun farms attorneys fees orderAloun farms attorneys fees order
Aloun farms attorneys fees order
 
Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants
 Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants
Memo In Support Of Motion To Amend And Add Defendants
 
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...
Lawweb.in judgment of us district court on motion for a negative inference ba...
 
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise Newsome
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise NewsomeJUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise Newsome
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise Newsome
 
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge DismissalFindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
FindLaw | Prop. 8 Challenge Dismissal
 
HKS status report on motion for contempt
 HKS status report on motion for contempt HKS status report on motion for contempt
HKS status report on motion for contempt
 
205811403 fuentes-v-shevin-original-case
205811403 fuentes-v-shevin-original-case205811403 fuentes-v-shevin-original-case
205811403 fuentes-v-shevin-original-case
 
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Disregards Criminal Conspiracy by Attorneys as Officers...
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Disregards Criminal Conspiracy by Attorneys as Officers...U.S. Bankruptcy Court Disregards Criminal Conspiracy by Attorneys as Officers...
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Disregards Criminal Conspiracy by Attorneys as Officers...
 
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
Motion to Schedule Trial (Speedy Trial Rights)
 
WritingSample
WritingSampleWritingSample
WritingSample
 
Crawford Memo.pdf
Crawford Memo.pdfCrawford Memo.pdf
Crawford Memo.pdf
 

More from JRachelle

Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund  status conferenceMarshall v Living Trust Fund  status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference
JRachelle
 
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)
JRachelle
 
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern  - Motion for certiorari grantedStern  - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted
JRachelle
 
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF PetitionSCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
JRachelle
 
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss
JRachelle
 
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
JRachelle
 
Brown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to DismissBrown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to Dismiss
JRachelle
 
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaintShelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
JRachelle
 
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie   order for hearing rescheduledBonnie   order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled
JRachelle
 
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010
JRachelle
 
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying caseBonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case
JRachelle
 
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10
JRachelle
 
Marshall V Marshall 3 19 10
Marshall V  Marshall 3 19 10Marshall V  Marshall 3 19 10
Marshall V Marshall 3 19 10
JRachelle
 
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10Marshall Opinion 3 19 10
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10
JRachelle
 
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09
JRachelle
 
Motion To Set Hearing Scott Joye
Motion To Set Hearing   Scott JoyeMotion To Set Hearing   Scott Joye
Motion To Set Hearing Scott Joye
JRachelle
 
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for SanctionsScott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions
JRachelle
 
Gaither Depo - HD to McCabe
Gaither  Depo  - HD to McCabeGaither  Depo  - HD to McCabe
Gaither Depo - HD to McCabe
JRachelle
 
ORDER - Leave To Extend Time For Contempt And To Amend
ORDER - Leave To Extend Time For Contempt And To AmendORDER - Leave To Extend Time For Contempt And To Amend
ORDER - Leave To Extend Time For Contempt And To Amend
JRachelle
 

More from JRachelle (20)

Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund  status conferenceMarshall v Living Trust Fund  status conference
Marshall v Living Trust Fund status conference
 
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO  COUNTS)
CA Verdicts - incomplete (partial consensus on TWO COUNTS)
 
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern  - Motion for certiorari grantedStern  - Motion for certiorari granted
Stern - Motion for certiorari granted
 
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF PetitionSCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
SCOTUS - NOTICE OF Petition
 
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss Bonnie   - Stipulation to dismiss
Bonnie - Stipulation to dismiss
 
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
ORDER - Motion to Dismiss
 
Brown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to DismissBrown - Motion to Dismiss
Brown - Motion to Dismiss
 
GBT ANSWER
GBT ANSWERGBT ANSWER
GBT ANSWER
 
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaintShelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
Shelleys - 7-19-2010 Answer to 1st amended complaint
 
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie   order for hearing rescheduledBonnie   order for hearing rescheduled
Bonnie order for hearing rescheduled
 
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010S Carolina -  first amended complaint 7-1-2010
S Carolina - first amended complaint 7-1-2010
 
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying caseBonnie   ex.a - 2009 order staying case
Bonnie ex.a - 2009 order staying case
 
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10
Bonnie - joint status report 7 13-10
 
Marshall V Marshall 3 19 10
Marshall V  Marshall 3 19 10Marshall V  Marshall 3 19 10
Marshall V Marshall 3 19 10
 
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10Marshall Opinion 3 19 10
Marshall Opinion 3 19 10
 
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09
Cbs Motion Summary Judgment 10 1 09
 
Motion To Set Hearing Scott Joye
Motion To Set Hearing   Scott JoyeMotion To Set Hearing   Scott Joye
Motion To Set Hearing Scott Joye
 
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for SanctionsScott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions
Scott Joye Motion For Joinder To Brown Response to Motion for Sanctions
 
Gaither Depo - HD to McCabe
Gaither  Depo  - HD to McCabeGaither  Depo  - HD to McCabe
Gaither Depo - HD to McCabe
 
ORDER - Leave To Extend Time For Contempt And To Amend
ORDER - Leave To Extend Time For Contempt And To AmendORDER - Leave To Extend Time For Contempt And To Amend
ORDER - Leave To Extend Time For Contempt And To Amend
 

SC Opinion and Order - motion for comtempt

  • 1. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Howard K. Stern, as Executor of the ) Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, ) a/k/a Vickie Lynn Smith, ) a/k/a Vickie Lynn Hogan, ) a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith, ) ) Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC ) v. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Stancil Shelley, a/k/a Ford Shelley, ) G. Ben Thompson, Gaither Bengene ) Thompson, II, Melanie Thompson, Gina ) Thompson Shelley, Susan M. Brown, and ) The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Currently before the court is Plaintiff Howard K. Stern’s, Executor of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, (“Executor”) Motion for Contempt and Sanctions [Entry #79] against Defendants G. Ben Thompson (“Thompson”) and Susan M. Brown (“Brown”), Thompson’s former counsel in this matter, for violation of a Consent Order Entering Preliminary Injunction [Entry #39]. The court held a hearing on September 28, 2010. After hearing oral arguments on these motions and considering the parties’ memorandums and the relevant evidence in the record of this case, the court will grant in part and deny in part Executor’s Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 1 of 9
  • 2. 2 Executor originally brought this action on August 4, 2008, against Stancil “Ford” Shelley (“Shelley”) and Thompson alleging that Shelley and Thompson wrongfully removed and retained personal property of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall from the residence known as “Horizons,” located in the Bahamas, after Ms. Marshall’s death. The action was subsequently amended to join Gaither Bengene Thompson, II, Melanie Thompson, Gina Thompson Shelley, and Susan M. Brown and The Law Offices of Susan M. Brown, P.C. (the “Law Firm”) as party defendants. Brown and the Law Firm served as counsel to Thompson and Shelley in the early stages of this matter. Prior to filing the lawsuit, Executor repeatedly requested the return of all Estate property from Brown and Thompson, which would have included the property specifically at issue in this motion for contempt and sanctions. In response to Executor’s requests, Brown delivered certain property to Executor’s counsel in November 2007. The property delivered to counsel at that time did not include two external hard drives Brown had received from her client, Shelley. While the hard drives were in Brown’s possession, she allegedly permitted Shelley to have access to themand allegedly transferred the hard drives to The O’Quinn Law Firm for forensic analysis under the auspices of a Common Interest and Confidentiality Agreement. Subsequent to the initial production of property, Executor became aware of the existence of the external hard drives. Executor demanded the hard drives be provided to his counsel. In an effort to prevent further dissemination and disclosure of the Estate property, Executor sought a temporary restraining order from this court. After conducting a hearing on the matter, on January 16, 2009, this court entered a Consent Order Entering Preliminary Injunction (“Consent Order”). Brown did not object to the entry of the order and made no representation to the court 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 2 of 9
  • 3. 3 regarding her possession or custody of any Estate property other than two external hard drives that contained copies of alleged Estate property. Brown relinquished possession of the external hard drives to Executor’s counsel within the time designated by the Consent Order. Several months thereafter, Executor learned that Brown’s role in the possession and distribution of the alleged Estate property was potentially more extensive than originally suspected. Therefore, Executor sought further discovery from Brown as to her actions through a subpoena to appear at a deposition and to produce documents. Brown sought to quash the subpoena in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Northern District Court of Georgia denied Brown’s request to quash the subpoena, but modified the subpoena to preserve attorney-client and work product privileges. See Order, Stern v. Shelley, et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-00082-JTC-RGV (N.D. Ga., October 28, 2009). During the discovery and production of documents subject to the subpoena, Brown produced additional copies of photographs and legal documents which Executor considered to be Estate property. Executor filed this motion for contempt and for sanctions on the grounds that Brown’s retention and belated production of copies of the alleged Estate property constitutes a violation of the Consent Order. LEGAL STANDARD To hold a party in civil contempt, the following four elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor had actual or constructive knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the movant’s “favor”; (3) that the alleged contemnor by its conduct violated the terms of the decree, and had knowledge (at least constructive knowledge) of such violation; and (4) that the movant suffered harm as a result. See 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 3 of 9
  • 4. 4 Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000). A court may impose sanctions for civil contempt “to coerce obedience to a court order or to compensate the complainant for losses sustained as a result of the contumacy.” In re General Motors Corp., 61 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 1995). The appropriate sanctions to be imposed for civil contempt lie within the court’s broad discretion. Id. at 259. However, “a compensatory sanction ‘may not exceed the actual loss to the complainant caused by the actions of respondent, lest the contempt fine become punitive in nature, which is not appropriate in a civil contempt proceeding.’” Id. (Internal citations omitted). DISCUSSION I. Contempt Against Brown Executor argues that Brown should be held in contempt for retaining copies of Estate property after the entry of the Consent Order. This court agrees that Executor has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Brown violated the specific and unequivocal commands of the Consent Order. In that order, the court stated: At or before 5:00 p.m. on the fifth business day after entry of this Consent Order Entering Preliminary Injunction, Susan M. Brown, attorney for Defendant G. Ben Thompson, shall deliver to the Executor’s attorneys at Bryan Cave Powell Goldstein, One Atlantic Center – FourteenthFloor, 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, any of the Property belonging to the Estate which is in Ms. Brown’s possession or custody, including all originals and all duplicates of such Property, specifically including but not limited to the two (2) hard drives belonging to the Estate which are in Ms. Brown’s possession. See Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction, at 2-3 (Emphasis added). The order clearly and unambiguously commanded Brown to deliver to Executor both original and duplicates of any potential Estate property. By demonstrating that Brown retained duplicates of the photographs stored on the hard drives and duplicates of legal documents which were subject to the Consent Order, Executor has met his burden to warrant a finding of contempt against Brown. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 4 of 9
  • 5. 5 Brown, however, asks this court to excuse her violation of the Consent Order because she contends that any violation of the Consent Order was unintentional. Brown insists that she only discovered the duplicates on her computer around the same time as she was served with a subpoena for discovery concerning her involvement in the dissemination of Estate property and that she voluntarily provided those duplicates to the Executor in compliance with the Consent Order when they came to her attention. As further support for her position, Brown also submits that she went above and beyond the requirements of the Consent Order by giving her entire computer to Executor for destruction. Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplates that a party will conduct a diligent search for documents responsive to a request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. It is only reasonable to require this same level of responsibility from parties in complying with orders of the court requiring the production of documents. It is clear from Brown’s testimony that she did not meet the requirements of Rule 34 because a simple search of her computer would have revealed the existence of the images subject to production under the Consent Order. Additionally, civil contempt does not require a showing of wilfulness. In re General Motors Corp., 61 F.3d at 258. Therefore, this court declines to accept Brown’s argument that any violation was unintentional and finds Brown in contempt of the January 16, 2009, Consent Order of this court. II. Contempt Against Thompson Executor contends that if this court finds Brown in contempt, it necessarily must find Thompson in contempt because Brown was acting as Thompson’s counsel at the time of her violation of the Consent Order. Interestingly, Executor admitted during the hearing on the matter that he has no independent basis upon which to charge Thompson with contempt. 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 5 of 9
  • 6. 6 In this case, there is no indication that Brown’s violation of the Consent Order was suborned by any conduct attributable to Thompson. In fact, the record is replete with contradictory testimony and assertions from Brown and Thompson as to the extent of Thompson’s knowledge of Brown’s possession of the property or her disclosure of the property to third parties. Without some showing of a violation on Thompson’s part, this court is hesitant to impose sanctions upon him simply on the basis that Brown was his attorney. This is particularly true where Brown now finds herself a named defendant in the underlying action. Executor cites many circumstances in which a client may be held liable for the actions of his or her attorney. However, none of the cases cited by Executor addresses the subject of contempt. Moreover, this court has not found any case mandating a finding of contempt against a client for the exclusive actions of counsel. Absent any citation of authority to the contrary, this court is not convinced that a finding of contempt against Thompson is mandatory. Instead, the court defers to its well-established discretionary authority in contempt matters and finds that Executor has not met the burden of showing Thompson’s violation of the Consent Order by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, Executor’s motion for contempt as to Thompson is denied. III. Sanctions Having found Brown in contempt, this court must now determine if sanctions against Brown are warranted. Executor requests the following sanctions: A. Striking Ben Thompson’s defenses to the Executor’s Complaint; B. Entering judgment in favor of the Executor on his Complaint as against Ben Thompson; C. Awarding the Executor all of his expenses and reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of the violation of the Order, including but not limited to fees incurred through discovery concerning the Property held by Brown 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 6 of 9
  • 7. 7 in violation of the Order, attempts to retrieve the Property, and efforts taken to ensure the destruction of Brown’s hard drive; D. Ordering Ben Thompson and Brown to immediately turn over to the Executor’s attorneys all property belonging to the Estate – including all originals; and E. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. See Executor’s Motion for Contempt and Sanctions, at 2-3. The remediesandsanctionsforcivilcontemptare intended to be remedial and compensatory. In re General Motors Corp., 61 F.3d at 259. Sanctions in the context of civil contempt should not be punitive in nature. Id. Accordingly, the court will not strike Thompson’s defenses or enter judgmentagainstThompsononExecutor’sComplaintbecausesuchremedieswouldbeundulyharsh and punitive under the circumstances of this case. See Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U.S. 409, 413-14 (1897) (noting that the court does not have the inherent power to strike a defendant’s answer as punishment for contempt of court). The court is persuaded, however, that some measure of sanctions against Brown is appropriate here. Brown stated in her deposition that she did not produce the duplicate property because she was unaware of its existence on her computer hard drive, although she admitted that her clients had used her computer to show her images that were arguably Estate property. Given Brown’s knowledge of her clients’ use of her computer to display the images, it is hard to accept that BrownfulfilledherobligationsunderFederalRule34. Furthermore, despite Brown’s admission that she understood the Consent Order, she also admitted during her deposition to retaining copies of the property on her computer following her production in response to the subpoena. Even assuming that Brown was unaware of the images on her computer prior to preparing for her deposition, she undoubtedly was aware that she retained copies of that material in her possession after the 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 7 of 9
  • 8. 8 production in response to the subpoena - a direct violation of the Consent Order’s mandate to give all duplicates to Executor’s counsel. Accordingly, the court will impose sanctions against Brown in the form of an award of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to Executor. Executor contends that Brown’s retention and alleged concealment of copies of Estate property caused Executor to expend great resources 1) to enforce the Consent Order; 2) to conduct discovery into Brown’s actions; 3) to retrieve the property; and 4) to destroy Brown’s computer once it was secured by Executor. Executor has already sought costs and attorney’s fees in connection with his pursuit of discovery from Brown regarding her actions and conduct in connection with the alleged Estate property through the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That court denied Executor’s request for costs and fees related to his pursuit of discovery from Brown. This court will not disturb the findings of that court. However, in light of Brown’s violation of the Consent Order, Executor is entitled to reasonable costs and attorney’s fees related to his pursuit of this motion for contempt only. CONCLUSION In summary, the court grants Executor’s motion for contempt and for sanctions against Brown and denies Executor’s motion for contempt and for sanctions against Thompson. As a result, Executor is entitled to recover from Brown his reasonable costs and attorney’s fees for the contempt proceeding before this court only. From the date of this order, Executor has twenty (20) days to submit a summary of his costs and attorney’s fees for this proceeding. Brown will have ten (10) days to respond. The court further orders Brown and Thompson to turn over to Executor all remaining property (originals and duplicates) belonging to the Estate in their possession, custody, 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 8 of 9
  • 9. 9 or control and to submit to Executor affidavits of compliance with this order within twenty (20) days of the date hereof. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ J. Michelle Childs United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina November 12, 2010 4:08-cv-02753-JMC -TER Date Filed 11/10/10 Entry Number 153 Page 9 of 9