Cano v. SEIU. Local 32BJ
- Katharine Parker
- 1:19-cv-08810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cano v. SEIU Local 32BJ, Judge Parker denied Cano’s contempt motion as unclear and premature.
The ruling affected Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz’s motion seeking a contempt finding against the defendants and left the document-production dispute subject to further court proceedings if necessary.
What happened
In Cano v. SEIU Local 32BJ, Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz asked the court to hold the defendants in contempt for allegedly failing to produce documents. He claimed they violated a January 10, 2022 court order and produced documents two months late.
The court said it had not issued an order on January 10, 2022, so it was unclear which order Cano believed the defendants had violated. The court also had directed the defendants on August 16 to produce certain documents by August 31, making the contempt request premature if that deadline had not yet passed.
The court denied the motion and directed the clerk to terminate it. Judge Katharine H. Parker told Cano to request a conference by letter rather than immediately filing another motion if a dispute remained after August 31, and warned that continued unfounded accusations could lead to sanctions.
The detailed version
- Cano v. SEIU. Local 32BJ · No. 1:19-cv-08810
- Katharine Parker
- Aug. 29, 2022
Background
On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff Jesus Maria Cano Ruiz moved for a finding that Defendants were in contempt of court because they allegedly failed to produce documents. In a supporting affidavit, Cano asserted that Defendants violated a court order issued on January 10, 2022, failed to produce documents until two months after they were due, and engaged in misconduct and a conspiracy against him.
Legal standard
A contempt finding requires clear and convincing evidence that the accused party violated a court ruling. Perfect compliance is not required; substantial compliance is enough to defeat a contempt motion.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that it had not issued any orders on January 10, 2022, and therefore could not identify the order Cano claimed Defendants had violated. The court also noted that, during an August 16, 2022 case-management conference, Cano said he was still waiting for certain documents. The court then directed Defendants to produce those documents by August 31, 2022. To the extent Defendants had not yet fully complied, the court held that Cano’s contempt motion was premature because the production deadline had not passed.
The court instructed Cano that, if he still believed Defendants had failed to comply after August 31, he should submit a letter requesting a conference rather than file another motion immediately. The court warned him that continuing to make unfounded accusations of misconduct, conspiracy, or bias could result in sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Plaintiff’s motion and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 120.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.