DISTRICT Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona has ordered Imperial Pacific International LLC chairwoman Cui Li Jie to explain in writing why the court should not find her in civil contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena.
The court said it may order Cui Li Jie to pay a fine of $10,000 per day until she fully complies with the subpoena, and that the IPI chairwoman faces “more severe sanctions, up to and including potential incarceration…for continued non-compliance….”
The judge ordered Cui Li Jie to respond in writing no later than Feb. 17 at 12 noon.
The judge also scheduled a hearing for Feb. 23 at 9 a.m.
The order to show cause was issued following a petition from attorney Bruce Berline who asked the federal court to find Cui Li Jie in contempt of court for disobeying a valid and properly served subpoena.
Berline is one of two attorneys for seven construction workers who sued IPI and its contractor and subcontractor MCC International, LLC, and Gold Mantis Construction Decoration (CNMI) over forced labor and human trafficking allegations.
IPI issued the following statement regarding the show-cause order:
“Ms. Cui has complied with the subpoena related to the case. She appeared in the deposition on February 5 accompanied by her lawyer, former Judge Juan Lizama.”
In his motion for contempt, Berline asked the court to impose a $10,000 per day fine as contempt sanction against Cui Li Jie until she complies with the subpoena.
Berline said Cui Li Jie should also pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs “resulting from her disobedience.”
According to Berline, Cui Li Jie was properly served as third-party witness with a subpoena to produce documents and appear for a deposition on Jan. 26, 2021 at his office.
Thomas Salas, in a declaration filed in court, stated that he served the subpoena to Cui Li Jie on Jan. 18, 2021 with a check for $45 for witness fee.
Berline said after being served, “Ms. Cui’s associate, an executive of IPI, Tao Xing, immediately sent text messages to intimidate the process server that he would face ‘legal trouble’ if he did not take back the subpoena.”
The next day, Jan. 19, an IPI employee returned the subpoena to Berline’s office.
Berline said, “Neither this attempt at intimidation nor the act of returning the physical subpoena negates its legal validity.”
He said after being contacted, attorney Lizama stated that he might represent Cui Li Jie in connection with the subpoena and requested an adjournment of the deposition.
But Berline said Lizama never confirmed that he was retained by Cui Li Jie.
“Ms. Cui also never moved the court to quash or modify the subpoena. On Jan. 26, Ms. Cui then failed to appear for the deposition or produce any documents,” Berline said, adding that “Ms. Cui clearly violated her legal obligations under the subpoena.”
