Re: Bob L - contempt

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

>So someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a
>default judgment along with preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
>order had already been made, and I was further under the impression that the
>contempt hearing was for Jim allegedly ignoring the preliminary injunction.
>
>My knowledge of the law is very limited but I'm not sure how a civil
>contempt motion could be made, if a judgment of some sort hadn't already
>been made against Jim.

A default has been recorded against Jim, meaning that he is no longer able
to argue the merits of the case against him.  All of the allegations made
by Brink's are now considered to be true, because Jim didn't challenge them
in the legally correct fashion at the appropriate time.

However, that is not a default judgment.  Judgments are for specific
amounts of money.  There has to be a hearing where Brink's proves its
damages.  Jim can challenge the amount, if he likes.  Then, the court
issues a judgment against Jim, ordering him to pay a specific amount to
Brink's.

Earlier in the case, Brink's obtained a temporary restraining order, which
Jim did not oppose.  That required Jiim not to disclose Brink's trade
secrets, post their manuals, post unlock codes, and so on.  That TRO was
later converted into a preliminary injunction.  That is an order from the
court not to do something.  It's called "preliminary" because there hasn't
been a final judgment in the case, and theoretically, it could disappear if
somehow Jim managed to win his case.

Brink's felt Jim had violated that preliminary injunction, so it went back
to court asking that Jim be held in "civil contempt" for violating the
court's order.  This has nothing to do with the final judgment; it's about
whether he disobeyed a court order.

Contempt comes in two flavors, criminal and civil.

Criminal contempt's purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court.
It's a crime, and may be punished by a fine or by jail time.  Flip off the
judge in court, and you'll get thrown in a jail cell.

Civil contempt's purpose is to benefit one party in a civil case when the
other party has disobeyed a court order.  The purpose of civil contempt is
either to compensate a party for damages he has suffered due to
disobedience of the court order, or to coerce future compliance with the
order.

Here, if Brink's wanted to be compensated, it would have to prove the
amount of damages it had suffered because Jim violated the preliminary
injunction, assuming he did so.  Probably the only damages Brink's could
prove would be the attorney's fees related to the contempt motion.  If they
wanted to claim damages due to Jim allegedly disclosing lockout codes,
they'd have to prove the losses they had suffered as a result, not just
pull some number out of their ass.  Jim could challenge the amount, if they
ever filed such a claim.

That leaves coercive civil contempt, an enforcement system designed to get
Jim to comply with the injunction in the future.  This could start as a
fine of $xxx per day until he complies.  However, this would require proof
that Jim is continuing to violate the injunction (note:  we're not arguing
about whether the injunction is justified, just whether Jim is obeying what
is currently the order of the court) and how we can determine when he has
complied with the injunction, so that the fines will stop.   Continued
disobedience of a court's order can be punished by jail time, but the
defendant holds the keys to his cell:  since the purpose is to obtain
compliance with the court's order, compliance gets him out of jail.

The purpose of civil contempt is to compensate and coerce.  Once the
purpose turns into punishment, it becomes criminal contempt, and the
protections of the Constitution and the criminal law apply.