Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2024

Anbang Group Holdings Co. Limited v. Zhou

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:23-cv-00998
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Anbang Group Holdings v. Zhou, Judge Hixson ordered Peter Crowley to show cause over a missed deposition subpoena if he did not appear by February 1.

Who this affects

The order directly affected non-party Peter Crowley, who was required to complete the deposition or explain why he should not face civil contempt. It also required the plaintiffs to serve the order and report proof of service.

What happened

In Anbang Group Holdings Co. Limited v. Zhou, the plaintiffs asked the court to require non-party Peter Crowley to explain why he should not be held in civil contempt for missing a deposition required by subpoena. Crowley did not attend the scheduled deposition and later stopped responding to the plaintiffs’ attempts to reschedule it.

The court said Rule 45 allows contempt when a person served with a subpoena fails, without an adequate excuse, to obey it. The plaintiffs showed that Crowley violated a specific court order by not complying with the subpoena. The opinion did not find Crowley in contempt at this stage.

Judge Hixson granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause. He ordered Crowley to appear for the deposition by February 1, 2024, or file a declaration and appear at a February 15 hearing to explain why he should not be held in civil contempt. The hearing would be canceled if the deposition occurred by February 1.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Anbang Group Holdings Co. Limited v. Zhou · No. 3:23-cv-00998
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Jan. 19, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g) for an order requiring non-party Peter Crowley to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt. The motion concerned a deposition subpoena served on Crowley on November 19, 2023. The subpoena required him to appear for a deposition on December 12, 2023, at the offices of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Palo Alto, California.

The plaintiffs sent Crowley a reminder letter and emails before the deposition. Court reporters and videographers were present, but Crowley did not appear. He later told plaintiffs’ counsel that transportation difficulties had made attendance difficult. Counsel offered to reschedule the deposition and proposed several dates, including dates outside business hours. Crowley said he would respond with possible dates but did not do so. The plaintiffs stated that their later phone calls and text messages went unanswered.

Legal standard

Rule 45(g) permits the court in the district where compliance is required to hold in contempt a person who was served with a subpoena and fails, without an adequate excuse, to obey it or a related court order. The court explained that an order to show cause, rather than a motion to compel, is the appropriate procedural step when a non-party fails to attend a subpoenaed deposition.

To establish civil contempt, the plaintiffs had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Crowley violated a specific and definite court order. If they met that burden, Crowley would then have to show that he took every reasonable step to comply and explain why compliance was not possible. Civil contempt must include a purge condition, meaning a way for the person to end the contempt by complying.

Ruling

The court found that the plaintiffs had shown that Crowley violated a specific and definite court order by failing to comply with the subpoena. It therefore granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause.

The court ordered Crowley to appear for his deposition by February 1, 2024. If he did not do so, he was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt. Crowley was required to file a declaration by February 8, 2024, and appear at a February 15, 2024 hearing before the court. If the deposition occurred by February 1, the parties were required to notify the court immediately, and the hearing would be vacated. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to serve the order on Crowley and file proof of service.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.