THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM v. REYNOLDS-BARBOUNIS
2:19-cv-05697
E.D. Pa.Jan 21, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff The Middle East Forum (MEF) sued former employee Lisa Reynolds‑Barbounis for alleged misappropriation of corporate assets, trade secrets, and confidential information.
- The Court entered an Order for Expedited Discovery on January 15, 2020 requiring Barbounis to verify interrogatory answers by Jan. 16 and to deliver all electronic devices and cloud‑storage access to vendor Cornerstone by Jan. 17 for imaging.
- Barbounis did not timely verify responses or deliver devices; she submitted late, unverified, and deficient responses and Cornerstone confirmed it received no devices.
- MEF moved for a contempt finding and sanctions (including default), seeking coercive daily fines and attorneys’ fees; MEF argued Poulis factors supported default and requested $1,500/day until compliance.
- The Court granted MEF’s motion: adjudged Barbounis in civil contempt, entered default for MEF, ordered immediate compliance (24 hours) and $1,500/day for continued noncompliance, and required Barbounis to pay MEF’s attorneys’ fees and costs (MEF to submit documentation within 14 days).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barbounis is in civil contempt for violating the Jan. 15 discovery order | Barbounis knowingly disobeyed a valid, specific court order (failed to verify answers, produce recordings, or turn over devices) | Objected that discovery requests were overbroad/irrelevant; asserted some materials were personal and denied erasing or disclosing MEF data | Court found order valid, defendant had knowledge, disobeyed it; adjudged Barbounis in civil contempt |
| Whether default judgment is an appropriate sanction | Poulis factors (personal responsibility, prejudice, history of dilatoriness, willfulness, ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions, meritorious claim) support default | Implied opposition to extreme sanction; raised discovery objections and produced partial responses late | Court entered default judgment for MEF, concluding Poulis factors weigh in favor of default |
| Whether coercive daily fines and a 24‑hour compliance deadline are appropriate | Coercive sanctions ($1,500/day) will compel compliance and compensate MEF; immediate turnover needed to protect trade secrets | Arguably opposed as punitive/excessive (implicit) | Court ordered full compliance within 24 hours and $1,500 per day for continued noncompliance |
| Whether Barbounis must pay MEF’s attorneys’ fees and costs related to hearings and the contempt motion | Fees and costs are compensatory for the contempt and justified | Opposed (implicit) | Court ordered Barbounis to pay MEF’s attorneys’ fees and costs; MEF to submit documentation within 14 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1966) (recognizing federal courts' inherent power to enforce compliance via civil contempt)
- Marshak v. Treadwell, 595 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 2010) (elements plaintiff must prove for civil contempt)
- Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d 1342 (3d Cir. 1995) (court orders must be specific and definite to support contempt)
- Harley‑Davidson, Inc. v. Morris, 19 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 1994) (willfulness is not a required element for civil contempt)
- Knoll v. City of Allentown, 707 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. 2013) (discussing standards for dismissal/default as sanction)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (six‑factor test for default/dismissal sanctions)
- Robin Woods, Inc. v. Woods, 28 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 1994) (civil contempt sanctions serve coercive and compensatory purposes)
- Latrobe Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers, 545 F.2d 1336 (3d Cir. 1976) (coercive contempt sanctions explained)
- Elkin v. Fauver, 969 F.2d 48 (3d Cir. 1992) (trial court discretion in framing civil contempt sanctions)
- CardioNet LLC v. MedNet Healthcare Techs., Inc., 146 F. Supp. 3d 671 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (example of high daily coercive sanctions imposed by this Court)