Litigation

Holding of Contempt Reversed When Trial Court did not Provide Specific Instructions

By H. William Allen et al.

The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a holding of contempt in Holifield v. Mullenax Tax Financial and Tax Advisory Group, No. 08-955 (4/15/09).

Holifield was a former employee of Mullenax. When he left, Mullenax filed suit alleging trade secret misappropriation. The trial court entered an ex parte order compelling Holifield to preserve any information he took and to submit to discovery on an expedited basis. At his deposition, Holifield agreed to provide files to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff never submitted a formal discovery request. Holifield provided some of the information in an unusable format and did not provide the rest until almost a year later. The trial court found Holifield in contempt and ordered a $500 sanction.

The supreme court reversed because the trial court's order to "submit to discovery on an expedited basis" was not specific enough. This order was not definite or clear as to the duties it imposed. Without a specific order, there can be no contempt.

Full post as published by Arkansas Business Litigation Blog on April 16, 2009 (boomark / email).