Platte River Insurance Company v. Liu

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * PLATT RIVER INSURANCE Case No. 2:20-cv-00723-GMN-EJY COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff, ORDER v. YAN HONG LIU dba C&L ENTERPRISE, a Nevada individual and sole proprietor; UFP DKY STORE 102, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; BIG BIZ PRO, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; DOES 1 through 10, and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.

13 Before the Court is Platte River Insurance Company’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Edward R. Ciampa Should Not be Held in Contempt and Modification of Scheduling Order (ECF No. 25). No response to this Motion was filed.

16 I. Background 17 Plaintiff Platte River Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) served a Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena on Edward F. Ciampa (“Ciampa”) ordering him to appear at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office for a deposition at 2 p.m. on September 30, 2020. Ciampa was personally served with the subpoena on September 4, 2020. Ciampa did not appear for his deposition and he did not respond to multiple attempts to reach him thereafter. Plaintiff seeks an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) because Ciampa, as managing member for UFP DKY Store # 102 LLC dba Dickey Barbecue Pit (“UFP”), signed a General Indemnity Agreement in favor of Plaintiff that is at issue in this dispute. Plaintiff asserts that 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) allows the Court to fine or imprison a person or entity for contempt of its authority.

26 II. Discussion 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g) states that “[t]he court for the district where || contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena || an order related to it.” Here, Ciampa, having been served with a subpoena, failed to obey tl || subpoena issued by the District Court for Nevada. Not only is no excuse for this failure provide || but Ciampa has not responded to Plaintiff's efforts to contact him to determine why he failed || appear as ordered. As such, an Order to Show Cause why Ciampa should not be held in contem || is properly issued. Sprint Nextel Corporation v. Ace Wholesale, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-2119-RF || VCF, 2016 WL 8376331, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2016) Ginternal citations omitted).

8 || I. Order 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for an Order to Show Cause □□□ || Edward R. Ciampa Should Not be Held in Contempt and Modification of Scheduling Order (EC || No. 25) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for an Order to Show Cause is GRANTED.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Edward F. Ciampa shall show cause why he should not | || held in contempt of Court no later than February 18, 2021.

15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counsel for Plaintiff shall ensure service of this Order « || Mr. Ciampa by immediately placing a copy of this Order in the U.S. Mail and, within three ( || Court days of the date of this Order, causing a copy to be hand-delivered to the address at whic || Mr. Ciampa was served with the underlying subpoena, obtaining a signed Receipt of Copy upx || delivery.

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for a modification of the discovery schedule || DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with information sufficient to kno || when the discovery period ended and the amount of time sought for extension of specific deadline || Plaintiff may refile a motion or stipulation to modify the existing scheduling order to allow the Cot || to consider this request.

25 Dated this 28th day of January, 2021 27 .

ELAYNA\W. YOU 28 AYN, yt au ATE JUDGE