from www.techdirt.com – This won’t come as much of a surprise to anyone following the ongoing battle between Righthaven and Marc Randazza, representing Wayne Hoehn (Randazza is also representing other clients fighting Righthaven, but much of the “action” is in the Hoehn case). The latest is a filing (embedded below) for the court to declare Righthaven in contempt of the court for completely ignoring a court order from December 12th to produce certain documents to Randazza as part of the effort to collect the attorneys’ fees that the court has already ordered:

Righthaven has failed to respect this Court’s lawful order. On December 12, this Court entered an order granting Hoehn’s motion to conduct a debtors examination in the presence of a U.S. Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 67). Righthaven did not oppose Hoehn’s motion seeking a debtors exam, and therefore consented to this Court’s entry of an order scheduling one (Docs. # 60, 64). At this time, there is no stay in place to inhibit the debtors exam from proceeding (Docs. # 56, 57).

In order to ensure his debtors exam was efficient, targeted and fruitful, Hoehn moved the Court to order Righthaven to produce certain documents in advance of the examination (Docs. # 60, 60-4). The Court granted this request by adopting Hoehn’s proposed order, and instructed Righthaven in clear, unambiguous language, to produce to Hoehn all of the following at least one (1) week before the scheduled examination:

Any and all information and documentation identifying real property, vehicles, bank accounts, bank deposits, company securities, intangible intellectual property and all other assets that may be available for execution to satisfy this Court’s judgment and writ of execution, including money owed to Judgment Debtor by others, and other information of the like;

and

Any and all information and documentation identifying purchases, transfers of funds, or other dissipation of assets from Righthaven to yourselves or any other third parties commencing on or about April 15, 2011. (Doc. # 67 at 2)

By obtaining these documents, Hoehn hoped to prepare for the debtors examination with specific, narrowly tailored questions about any unexplained or suspicious assets or transactions. Righthaven has refused to produce these documents, to discuss their production, or to even acknowledge that the Court ordered the Plaintiff to produce these documents…

One week after the Court’s order instructing Righthaven to produce the above-described documents, December 19, Hoehn’s counsel sent a facsimile message to Righthaven’s counsel inquiring about the production of those documents, as Righthaven had not contacted Hoehn about their production…. Righthaven’s counsel had previously requested that all correspondence occur exclusively via U.S. Mail or facsimile, and Hoehn’s counsel honored this request …. Sensing that Righthaven may not comply with the Court’s order, Hoehn’s counsel subpoenaed several banks doing business in Las Vegas for any financial records they may have for Righthaven LLC …. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1), Hoehn’s counsel provided a notice of these subpoenas to Righthaven’s counsel …. Since bank records were just a small portion of the documents the Court ordered Righthaven to produce, Hoehn’s counsel specifically reminded Righthaven of its duty to produce these documents in advance of the debtors exam, despite the subpoena …. To the contrary, the subpoenas heightened the need for Righthaven’s records, as they were needed were needed in order to check for discrepancies against the bank-issued financial records.

Having received no reply from Righthaven with respect to the December 19 letter or December 21 notice, Hoehn’s counsel sent another letter to Righthaven’s counsel via facsimile on December 26, 2011…. Righthaven’s counsel did not respond to this communication…. After the close of business on December 29, 2011, one week before the scheduled debtors examination, Hoehn’s counsel again sent a letter to Righthaven’s counsel via facsimile and U.S. Mail, seeking production of these documents … To date, Righthaven’s counsel has not responded to this communication