In Guadalupe v. Chase Auto Fin. Corp., No. 25-CV-00718 (HG) (JMW) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2026), New York Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks ruled that “monetary sanctions of $500 per day to be an appropriate coercive sanction”, finding non-party Sol Enterprise Transport (SET) to be in civil contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena for employment and payroll records. He also found “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs are also appropriate.”

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, the dispute arose in the context of a broader lawsuit in which Plaintiff alleged unlawful repossession of his vehicle. However, the specific matter before the Court concerned SET and its persistent failure to produce subpoenaed employment and payroll records relevant to the Plaintiff’s claimed damages.

Judge Wicks’s analysis began with the procedural history of SET’s noncompliance. After being served with a subpoena duces tecum in July 2025, SET acknowledged receipt and even sought clarification regarding the requested documents. Despite this initial communication, SET failed to produce any documents by the August 6 deadline and subsequently ignored multiple follow-up communications from defense counsel. This pattern of non-responsiveness continued for months, even after motions to compel were filed and court orders were issued directing compliance.

Judge Wicks emphasized that this conduct satisfied the standard for civil contempt. As previously determined by Judge Gonzalez, the subpoena constituted a “clear and unambiguous court order,” SET’s noncompliance was “clear and convincing,” and SET failed to demonstrate any effort to comply. These findings established a prima facie case of contempt, shifting the Court’s focus to the appropriate sanctions.

In discussing the legal framework, Judge Wicks underscored that federal courts possess inherent authority to enforce compliance with their orders through civil contempt. Quoting precedent, He noted that courts “have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.” Judge Wicks also distinguished civil contempt sanctions from criminal ones, explaining that such sanctions “are not punitive” but instead serve two primary purposes: to coerce compliance and to compensate the harmed party.

Judge Wicks further explained that, in fashioning sanctions, he must employ the “least possible power adequate to the end proposed.” This principle guided its evaluation of whether monetary sanctions would effectively compel SET’s compliance while remaining proportionate to the circumstances.

Applying these principles, Judge Wicks found that SET’s prolonged and willful noncompliance warranted coercive monetary sanctions. He highlighted that SET had ignored the subpoena for nearly seven months and continued its defiance even after being expressly warned that sanctions would follow. Judge Wicks observed that SET’s failure had materially disrupted discovery, noting that the absence of employment records hindered the parties’ ability to evaluate the Plaintiff’s claimed lost wages and necessitated an extension of the discovery deadline.

Judge Wicks also found that SET’s conduct closely resembled that of contemnors in prior cases where daily fines were imposed. Like those cases, SET was deemed a “key witness,” and its noncompliance significantly impeded the litigation process. Moreover, SET never attempted to challenge the subpoena, seek modification, or provide any explanation for its failure to comply. Nor did it appear at the sanctions hearing or assert any inability to pay a monetary penalty.

Given these circumstances, Judge Wicks concluded that a daily fine was appropriate. Specifically, he ordered that SET be given “one last opportunity” to comply with the subpoena by February 25, 2026. If SET failed to do so, it would face a coercive sanction of $500 per day for each weekday of continued noncompliance beginning February 26, 2026. Judge Wicks explained that this sanction was designed to compel compliance rather than punish past behavior, aligning with the fundamental purpose of civil contempt remedies.

In addition to coercive sanctions, Judge Wicks determined that compensatory sanctions were warranted in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs. Judge Wicks found that SET’s noncompliance was willful, noting that SET had actual notice of both the subpoena and the Court’s orders yet made no effort to comply. Judge Wicks cited evidence that SET’s principal acknowledged receipt of communications and even promised to produce documents but ultimately failed to do so. This pattern of conduct supported a finding that SET “willfully and intentionally flouted this Court’s Orders.”

So, what do you think? Should a non-party receive a coercive sanction for failing to comply with a subpoena? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today. Hat tip to Judge Andrew Peck for the heads up on this case.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.