From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jerome v. Barnack

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 15, 2021
2:19-cv-0073 MCE DB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2021)

Opinion

2:19-cv-0073 MCE DB

06-15-2021

CONNIE JEROME, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT SCOTT BARNACK, an Individual Defendant.


ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 19, 2020, the undersigned issued an Order for Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor Robert Scott Barnack, as well as for the production of documents. (ECF No. 29.) That order has never been complied with. Instead, despite the undersigned's repeated cautions against such conduct, Robert Barnack and attorney Julia Young have repeatedly failed to comply with that order through Barnack's failures to appear and failures to produce documents.

Accordingly, on May 20, 2021, the undersigned issued an order again ordering Barnack to produce responsive documents and to appear at a judgment debtor examination on June 18, 2021. On June 15, 2021, the judgment creditor filed a document stating that Barnack has yet again failed to comply with the undersigned's order by failing to produce the documents as ordered. (ECF No. 42.) Because the documents are necessary for an effective judgment debtor examination, the filing requests a continuance of the June 18, 2021 examination.

Robert Barnack and attorney Young appear to have again disregarded the undersigned's words of caution and threats of monetary sanction. With respect to the limits of the court's authority to sanction, Barnack and Young are advised that their consistent contempt and disobedience may subject them to “both” monetary sanctions and “imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 401; see also U.S. v. State of Tenn., 925 F.Supp. 1292, 1301 (W.D. Tenn. 1995) (“Both imprisonment and fines, when coercive or conditional, are legitimate civil contempt sanctions.”); In re Joint Eastern and Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation, 830 F.Supp. 1153, 1155 (C.D. Ill. 1993) (“imprisonment or fines can be used as sanctions”).

Although the undersigned has reached no conclusions, Robert Barnack and attorney Young should be prepared to pay considerable monetary sanctions. If they continue to show contempt for the undersigned's orders they should prepare to face imprisonment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. On or before July 2, 2021, Robert Barnack shall produce responsive documents;

2. The June 18, 2021 judgment debtor examination is continued to Friday, July 23, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27;

3. On or before July 30, 2021, attorney Young and Robert Barnack shall show cause in writing as to why they should not be sanctioned for repeatedly failing to comply with the orders of this court;

4. On or before August 6, 2021, the judgment creditor shall file a brief addressing the propriety and calculation of any requested sanctions;

5. On or before August 13, 2021, Robert Barnack and/or attorney Young may file a response addressing the sanctions sought; and

6. Attorney Young and Robert Scott Barnack shall appear on Friday, August 20, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned to address their conduct and the appropriate sanctions.


Summaries of

Jerome v. Barnack

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 15, 2021
2:19-cv-0073 MCE DB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Jerome v. Barnack

Case Details

Full title:CONNIE JEROME, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT SCOTT BARNACK, an Individual…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 15, 2021

Citations

2:19-cv-0073 MCE DB (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2021)