Sprint Nextel Corporation v. Ace Wholesale, INC, 2:14-cv-02119

Sprint filed a trademark/infringement-related action in N.D. Ga. alleging defendants trafficked and “unlocked” iPhones; Sprint served a Rule 45 subpoena on Worldwide Mobile Trading (WMT) and its principal Chetan Arora to appear in Las Vegas for deposition and produce documents.
WMT/Arora were served in Nevada; Arora failed to appear at the October 8, 2014 deposition and sent a one-line note that he was "out of country."
Sprint attempted to meet-and-confer; Arora did not respond. Sprint moved to compel in the district where discovery was to occur.
The magistrate judge granted Sprint’s motion to compel (March 25, 2015) and ordered a knowledgeable WMT representative to appear April 16, 2015 to show cause for noncompliance.
WMT/Arora again failed to appear or produce documents at the April 16, 2015 show-cause hearing. The magistrate judge recommends holding Worldwide Mobile Trading in civil contempt and awarding Sprint reasonable fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether WMT failed to obey the Rule 45 subpoena and appear/produce documents for deposition	Sprint: WMT was properly served and failed without adequate excuse to appear and produce responsive documents	WMT: (no response was made; no defenses asserted)	Court: WMT failed to comply and disobeyed the subpoena — noncompliance established
Whether WMT should be held in civil contempt for disobeying court orders under Rule 37	Sprint: Contempt appropriate to compel compliance and to sanction failure to obey subpoena and the court’s order to show cause	WMT: (no response; no showing of inability or good-faith efforts)	Court: Recommend civil contempt under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vii); fees and costs to be awarded to Sprint

GoVideo, Inc. v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., 10 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 1993) (civil contempt aimed at compelling compliance with court orders)
Federal Trade Commission v. Enforma Nat. Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2004) (burden shifts to contemnor to show why compliance was impossible after movant meets its burden)
Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263 (9th Cir. 1984) (court has wide latitude to determine contempt)
In re Dual–Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 1993) (good-faith efforts can negate contempt)
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (contempt inappropriate if all reasonable steps to comply were taken)
Stone v. City of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992) (recommending contempt where nonparty failed to comply with subpoena)
Aldridge v. Young, 782 F. Supp. 1457 (D. Nev. 1991) (magistrate’s contempt-certification procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e))
In re Kitterman, 696 F. Supp. 1366 (D. Nev. 1988) (district judge’s contempt authority after magistrate certification)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural default for failure to timely object to magistrate recommendations)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to timely object may waive appeal)
Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 (9th Cir. 1983) (same waiver principle)