Early Warning Services LLC v. Johnson et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Early Warning Services LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warren Vurl Johnson, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-01587-PHX-SMB
ORDER
On January 29, 2026, the Court vacated the March 4, 2026 Show Cause Hearing in
light of Defendant Warren Vurl Johnson’s then pending Motion for Recusal. (Doc. 336.)
Johnson’s Motion was assigned to Judge Desai who denied the motion. (Doc. 371).
Accordingly, the Court reinstitutes a Show Cause Hearing and stays these proceedings
pending that hearing for the following reasons.
On December 4, 2024, the Court issued an Order: (1) “prohibiting Defendants from
accessing, using or disclosing any of EWS’s Confidential Information or Trade Secrets
during the pendency of this action”; and instructed (2) “that Defendants . . . provide access
to all digital electronic devices and media and all electric mail and storage accounts within
their possession, custody, or control . . . that may include EWS’s Confidential Information
or Trade Secrets for forensic imaging of those devices and accounts (including all
metadata) by EWS’s forensics vendor.” (Doc. 70 at 16–17.) Defendant Warren Vurl
Johnson unsuccessfully appealed this Order, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed in its
entirety. See Early Warning Servs., LLC v. Brandon O’loughlin, P.A.Z.E. LLC, No.
Case 2:24-cv-01587-SMB Document 372 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24-7315, 2025 WL 1895313, at *2 (9th Cir. July 9, 2025). Still, Johnson (1) continues to
disclose EWS’s privileged information on the public record; and (2) refuses to allow
forensic imaging of his devices and accounts.
Johnson’s continued defiance has elicited no less than a dozen Orders which sealed
filings containing EWS’s privilege information. (Docs. 51, 89, 93, 100, 123, 132, 163, 277,
282, 283, 314, 321.) Additionally, Johnson refuses to submit his devices and accounts for
forensic imaging despite the December 2024 Order and the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance
thereof. In fact, Johnson’s continued defiance required this Court to hold him in contempt
on September 24, 2025. (Doc. 243). Undeterred, Johnson ignores the September 2025
Order and instead opts to incur the associated $1,000 per diem fine that began to accrue on
September 27, 2025—116 days ago. Johnson appealed the September 2025 Order despite
that Order being the mere enforcement of the December 2024 Order which the Ninth
Circuit affirmed.
The Court will therefore set an in-person hearing at which Johnson must show cause
as to why he should not be found in contempt for his continued violations of this Court’s
December 2024 and September 2025 Orders. Additionally, the Court will order Johnson
to bring “all digital electronic devices and media and all electric mail and storage accounts”
in accordance with the December 2024 Order (Doc. 70) and the Forensic Imaging Order
as discussed in the September 2025 Order (Doc. 243). The Court will also issue a
temporary stay of this action and will direct that no further motions may be filed without
leave of Court. Ward v. Batra, No. 1:21-CV-00929-KES-SKO (PC), 2025 WL 3068919,
at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025) (imposing filing restrictions when face with a “flood of
filings”).
The Court presumes that Johnson is aware of its ability to issue financial sanctions
for his refusal to comply Court orders. However, the Court hereby notifies Johnson that
the Court also has the inherent power to strike “an answer and enter default judgment.”
Eagles Nest Outfitters, Inc. v. Taomore, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-00466-GW-(EX), 2024 WL
3008866, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2024). Such measures are appropriate “to punish a
Case 2:24-cv-01587-SMB Document 372 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contempt of court . . . when the misconduct of a party interferes with the production of
evidence.” Nostalgia Network, Inc. v. Rayle, 11 F. App’x 720 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court
also has the inherent power to “impose conditional imprisonment to compel a person to
obey a valid order.” Yan v. Fu, No. 11-CV-01814-RS (RMI), 2022 WL 18402460, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2022).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Warren Vurl Johnson shall appear
in-person before the Honorable Susan M. Brnovich on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, at
10:00 a.m. (Arizona time) in Courtroom 506, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003, to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of this Court’s
December 2024 Order (Doc. 70) and its September 2025 Order (Doc. 243).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Warren Vurl must bring “all digital
electronic devices and media and all electric mail and storage accounts” in accordance with
the December 2024 Order (Doc. 70) and the Forensic Imaging Order as discussed in the
September 2025 Order (Doc. 243) to the April 22 hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is stayed pending the April 22, 2026
hearing and that no further motions may be filed without leave of Court.
Dated this 19th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-01587-SMB Document 372 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 3