Tyree v. Melton et al

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CINDY TYREE, an individual
residing in the State of South Carolina,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KIRK A. MELTON, an individual
residing in the State of Idaho;
RANDSLAW, PLLC, and Idaho
professional limited liability company;
J. JUSTIN MAY, an individual
residing in the State of Idaho;
JOHNSON MAY, PLLC, an Idaho
professional limited liability company,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:24-cv-00231-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Cindy Tyree brought this lawsuit against Defendants, her former
attorneys, regarding their representation of Tyree in a dispute about her ownership
interest in three family-owned businesses—Northwest Foam Products, Inc.,
Ransom Properties, LLC, and Ransom Commercial Properties, LLC. These family-
owned businesses are not parties to this case.
Before the Court is Tyree’s motion for civil contempt and sanctions. Dkt. 60.
For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny this motion.
Case 1:24-cv-00231-BLW Document 73 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 5

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
BACKGROUND
Tyree retained Defendants Kirk Melton and Randslaw, PLLC in 2019, who
filed a lawsuit on Tyree’s behalf in 2020 against the family-owned businesses in
Idaho State Court. See Tyree v. Northwest Foam Products, Inc., et al., Fifth
Judicial District, Case No. CV42-20-1302. In 2021, Tyree also retained Defendants
J. Justin May and Johnson May, PLLC to assist with the case. Tyree and the
family-owned businesses settled the case in 2023. Later that year, the family-
owned businesses sued Tyree in Idaho State Court for breach of settlement.
Northwest Foam Products, Inc. et al. v. Tyree, Fifth Judicial District, Case No.
CV42-23-4559.
Tyree then filed this case against her former attorneys for professional
negligence.1 As part of her case, she subpoenaed the family-owned businesses for
records. They, in turn, moved to quash the subpoenas. The Court granted in part
and denied in part the motion to quash. Dkt. 56. The Court ordered that Tyree
could only obtain documents from the family-owned businesses that were
particularly described, had been requested by Tyree’s experts, were created in 2018
or later, were not discoverable from Tyree’s former attorneys, and were not
1 Tyree brought several additional claims against her Former Attorneys here, but the
Court dismissed each of them except for her professional negligence action. Dkts. 19, 28.
Case 1:24-cv-00231-BLW Document 73 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 5

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
otherwise accessible to Tyree. Dkt. 56 at 12. Tyree asserts that the family-owned
businesses have not complied with this Court’s Order on the motion to quash in
that they have not produced responsive documents to Tyree’s requests. Dkt. 60.
She asks that the Court hold them in civil contempt, confine the family-owned
business’ principals, and assess $41,217.50 in compensatory sanctions. Dkt. 60.
LEGAL STANDARD
“The party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate that the alleged
contemnor violated the court’s order by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ not
merely a preponderance of the evidence.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette
Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993).
A district court has the inherent power to hold a party in civil contempt to
enforce compliance with an order of the court. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S.
364, 370 (1966). Courts also have a “wide latitude” in determining whether a party
is in contempt of its orders. Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 266 (9th Cir. 1984).
As such, it is up to the court to determine whether an entity is in contempt.
See F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999).
After finding a party in contempt, federal courts have “broad remedial
powers to address noncompliance.” A.B. by & through Trueblood v. Washington
State Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 681 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1174 (W.D. Wash.
Case 1:24-cv-00231-BLW Document 73 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 5

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
2023) (collecting cases). When the least intrusive measures fail to rectify the
problems, more intrusive measures are justifiable. Stone v. City and County of San
Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 1992).
ANALYSIS
In seeking documents from the family-owned businesses by subpoena, Tyree
“must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense” on those
businesses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii), (d)(1). This is all the more true because
the family-owned businesses are non-parties, so they “deserve extra protection
from the courts.” High Tech Medical Instrumentation v. New Image Indus., 161
F.R.D. 86, 88 (N.D. Cal. 1995). As the Court recently ordered, this means that
Tyree must limit the documents she requests from the family-owned businesses to
those identified by Tyree’s experts, that were created in 2018 or later, are not
discoverable from her former attorneys, are not otherwise accessible to Tyree, and
have been particularly described. See Dkt. 56 at 12.
Tyree does not appear to have limited the documents she seeks from the
family-owned businesses consistent with the Court’s Order. See Dkt. 64-2 at 31-
45. She seems to have limited her requests for documents by not seeking those
already produced in the state court action between Tyree and the businesses, but
that is not the extent of her obligation. See Dkt. 64-2 at 34. She must also limit her
Case 1:24-cv-00231-BLW Document 73 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 5

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
requests consistent with the rest of the Court’s Order. See Dkt. 56 at 12. This
includes not requesting documents she obtained or could obtain through this or
related federal litigation with her former attorneys or documents she otherwise has
access to. See Dkt. 56 at 12. Tyree has thus failed to demonstrate her full
compliance with the Court’s Order on the motion to quash.
Because Tyree’s compliance with that Order is necessary to trigger the
family-owned businesses’ obligations under it, Tyree has failed to show that they
are in violation of the Order. See Dkt. 56 at 12; High Tech Medical
Instrumentation, 161 F.R.D. at 88. The Court therefore denies Tyree’s motion for
civil contempt and sanctions. See In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder
Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d at 695.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for civil contempt and sanctions
(Dkt. 60) is DENIED.
DATED: May 4, 2026
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00231-BLW Document 73 Filed 05/04/26 Page 5 of 5