CATHEXIS VENTURES, LP
v.
MIQROTECH, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the defendant's motion for immediate release from custody because he had not purged his contempt by fully complying with discovery orders.
The defendant sought release from custody and to file discovery responses under seal, arguing substantial compliance with court orders. The court foun…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant seeks his immediate release from custody and requests that his counsel be excused from filing discovery responses under seal on the court docket. Emergency Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. 181) (Mot. for Misc. Rel.). The motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Lewis may send his discovery responses directly to the plaintiffs' counsel by email and forgo uploading copies of the same to the docket. Id. at 3, 5. To allow the Court to assess whether he has purged, Lewis must file amended responses to the requests for production and interrogatories on the docket. But Lewis should not do so again until all discovery has been produced.
Until a contemnor can “prove that no . . . realistic possibility exists" "that the contemnor will [comply]," the court may hold the contemnor in custody. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F. 2d 1525, 1530–31 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (alteration in the original) (quoting Simkin v. United States, 715 F. 2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1983)). Lewis has not produced to the plaintiffs all required discovery, nor has he established that no realistic possibility exists that he will comply. See Order Denying Mot. for Release (Doc. 177). Nonetheless, Lewis continues to ask for his release because compliance has at least been “substantial,” even if "not complete.” Mot. for Misc. Rel. at 4 (quoting Centennial Bank v. ServisFirst Bank Inc., No. 8:16-CV-88-T- 36JSS, 2019 WL 13037198, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2019)).
Lewis appears to believe that “substantial compliance" equates to making all "reasonable efforts" to comply and is sufficient to purge his contempt. See Mot. for Misc. Rel. at 4; cf. (Doc. 148) (order holding Lewis in contempt) at 3-4. But he has not convinced me that there is “no realistic possibility” that additional production is not forthcoming, nor that he has exhausted all reasonable efforts to comply, as evidenced by his representation that he has requested additional materials that he will produce upon receipt. See Mot. for Misc. Rel. at 4 (explaining that Lewis is awaiting outstanding discovery from subpoenaed parties and other third parties that he will produce upon receipt); see also (Doc. 148) at 5 (providing that Lewis “will be released" "upon proof of production” of “the ordered
2
discovery" "to the plaintiffs”). Thus, Lewis's motion all but admits that the contempt has not been purged and still likely will be. As a result, his request for immediate release is denied.
Accordingly, Lewis's emergency motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 31, 2025.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Simkin v. United States, 715 F.2d 34 (2d Cir. 1983)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & the State of Fla. v. Wellington Precious Metals, Inc., 950 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992)