good faith and reasonable belief that the exhibit was admitted in evidence.
B. CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. Liability for civil contempt attaches when a person violates a court order of which he or she has actual notice. Quinter v. Volkswagen of America, 676 F.2d 969, 972 (3d Cir. 1982); Thompson v. Johnson, 410 F. Supp. 633, 640 (E.D.Pa. 1976), aff'd mem., 556 F.2d 568 (3d Cir. 1977).
2. In a civil contempt proceeding, the proponent must demonstrate that respondent's conduct constituted contempt. Bic has not met its burden of proof. Quinter, 676 F.2d at 969; Fox v. Capital Co., 96 F.2d 684, 686 (3d Cir. 1938).
3. The fact that prohibited acts were done inadvertently or in good faith alone does not preclude a finding of contempt. Thompson, 410 F. Supp. at 640.
4. The Court's civil contempt power, however, is discretionary and should be exercised with caution; where there is ground to doubt the wrongfulness of defendant's conduct, he should not be held in contempt. Id.; see Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, slip op. at 26 (3d Cir. 1988); Quinter, 676 F.2d at 974.
5. Kardos' reasonable and good faith mistake that P-37 had been admitted in evidence does not warrant, in the exercise of this Court's discretion, a finding of contempt against respondent. See Thompson, 410 F. Supp. at 640-41.
6. Even where no finding of contempt is made, the Court may award complainant in a civil contempt proceeding attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in the attempt to ensure the enforcement of the Court's Order. Thompson, 410 F. Supp. at 644.
7. Because there are grounds to doubt Kardos' culpability, no award of attorneys' fees or expenses will be made to complainant.
8. The case was remanded "for consideration of whether Kardos may be held in contempt for retaining a copy of exhibit P-37 which was not a part of the judicial record." I conclude that Kardos' retention of this document is not sufficient to hold him in contempt. An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 1988, after a hearing and upon consideration of petitioner's Petition for Contempt Sanctions and the response of respondent, it is hereby ORDERED, based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, that petitioner's Petition is DENIED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.