Crafted by Joanna, LLC v. Solovev — Magistrate Judge Grants Motion to Enforce Discovery Order, Awards Fees, and Recommends Civil Contempt with Escalating Daily Fines

Background

Crafted by Joanna, LLC sued Daniil Solovev for copyright and trademark infringement arising from jewelry sales through online retailers, including Instagram. On October 7, 2026, the court entered a discovery order finding Solovev's Instagram-originated sales records "clearly relevant" to the amount of profits he must disgorge under the trademark and copyright claims. The court ordered Solovev to produce an Instagram data export file of 3,991 conversations and 51,952 messages related to his Instagram-originated sales (or provide Crafted access to his account) and processing reports or transaction records from the financial entities that processed those sales. It also awarded Crafted $950 in attorney fees for the motion to compel and set October 20 as the compliance deadline.

Solovev objected on October 18, but on October 22 presiding District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil overruled the objections and upheld the order, and she set a November 17 evidentiary hearing on damages. On October 29, Crafted moved to enforce the October 7 order, seeking attorney fees and civil contempt if Solovev continued to ignore it. Solovev responded the next day, conceding noncompliance but arguing against contempt sanctions. On November 2, the court ordered Solovev to produce the two categories of documents by 11:00 p.m. that day and cautioned that continued noncompliance would prompt a recommendation of a coercive fine of $100 on the first day, escalating $100 per day up to $1,000 per day. Solovev again failed to produce the documents.

The Court’s Holding

U.S. Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell granted Crafted's motion to enforce the October 7 order. Because Solovev did not dispute that he had not complied, the court ordered him to immediately produce the Instagram data export and the financial records and to immediately pay the $950 fee previously awarded. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C), the court also ordered Solovev to pay Crafted $1,567.50 in attorney fees incurred in bringing the enforcement motion, payable within 14 days. The court found the $475 hourly rate reasonable—indeed below market—for an experienced intellectual property litigator and found the 3.3 hours spent on the motion reasonable.

The court then certified the facts and recommended that Judge Vratil find Solovev in civil contempt under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii), which requires a magistrate judge to certify civil-contempt facts to a district judge. The court found clear and convincing evidence that a valid order existed, that Solovev knew of it, and that he disobeyed it; the burden then shifted to Solovev to show compliance or inability to comply, which he failed to do. The court recommended a coercive sanction of $100 on the first day of noncompliance (November 3), increasing $100 each day up to $1,000 per day until Solovev fully complies, finding no lesser sanction likely to work and noting that Solovev's sales figures suggested he could pay.

Key Takeaways

• A magistrate judge cannot impose civil contempt directly; under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii) the magistrate must certify the facts to a district judge, who decides the contempt finding and sanction.
• Civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence of a valid order, the contemnor's knowledge of it, and disobedience; the burden then shifts to the contemnor to prove compliance or inability to comply, and willfulness is not an element.
• Coercive sanctions must be calibrated to the harm threatened by continued noncompliance and the probable effectiveness of the sanction; escalating daily fines up to a cap are a standard tool.
• Under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), a party that disobeys a discovery order must pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, caused by the failure unless the failure was substantially justified.
• A party opposing a coercive fine who argues the court must consider its finances but presents no financial evidence leaves the court free to rely on the record of the party's sales and resources.

Why It Matters

This order illustrates the procedural path for contempt in discovery disputes: the magistrate judge orders compliance and fees directly but only recommends the contempt finding and coercive fine to the district judge. It also shows how courts in intellectual property damages cases use escalating daily fines to pressure a recalcitrant defendant whose sales records are needed to prove disgorgement, while leaving the ultimate contempt decision to the district court.