Schlattmann v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
4:16-cv-01183
E.D. Mo.Jul 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff served nonparty Matthew Anthony with a subpoena to appear for a deposition on June 9, 2017; Anthony did not appear.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause on June 13, 2017 directing Anthony to explain why he should not be held in contempt; Anthony did not respond.
- Plaintiff seeks a writ of body attachment to compel Anthony’s deposition appearance and requests $3,340 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
- The case arises under the FDCPA and TCPA; the Court noted it may enforce contempt orders across districts under Rule 4.1(b).
- The Eighth Circuit requires a court to enter an order compelling discovery before imposing contempt; the Court therefore gave Anthony one final opportunity to comply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anthony should be held in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena | Anthony failed to obey the subpoena and noncompliance warrants contempt, fees, and attachment | Anthony did not appear and did not respond to the show-cause order (no separate defense asserted) | Court declined immediate contempt; gave final chance to comply before contempt is entered |
| Whether the Court may issue a writ of body attachment and compel compliance across districts | Court may commit a person for civil contempt in any district under Rule 4.1(b) for federal-law cases | (no separate counter) | Court warned that failure to comply may result in seizure by U.S. Marshals and incarceration, but postponed issuing a writ pending compliance |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled now to attorneys’ fees and costs | Plaintiff seeks $3,340 in fees and costs for contempt-related enforcement | (no separate counter) | Assessment of fees is reserved; Court warned fees will be assessed if Anthony fails to comply |
| Whether due process requires an order compelling discovery before contempt | Plaintiff’s enforcement steps are appropriate but must respect due process | Anthony’s due process rights require notice and opportunity to cure | Court followed precedent: ordered a discovery-compelling step (final opportunity) before entering contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Marubeni Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338 (8th Cir. 1975) (subpoenas are court mandates and failure to comply may warrant contempt; due process considerations)
- United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950) (courts have power to enforce subpoenas and punish refusal to comply)
- Schleper v. Ford Motor Co., 585 F.2d 1367 (8th Cir. 1978) (contempt may not be entered until after an order compelling discovery is entered)