## Facts

- H.K. Porter Company, Inc. (“Porter”) sued National Friction Products Corp. (“National”) and Earl E. Figert in 1967, alleging misuse of Porter’s trade secrets and confidential information.
- On March 25, 1968, the parties executed a written Settlement Agreement resolving the litigation.
- The Settlement Agreement included restrictions aimed at preventing National and Figert from selling certain compounds to Frigidaire Division of General Motors Corporation for use in making an automobile air-conditioner pulley in competition with Porter.
- The agreement also stated that the court would enter a decree making the Settlement Agreement the judgment in the case.
- On April 15, 1968, the district court approved the Settlement Agreement, ordered that a copy be filed in the proceeding, and stated that the Settlement Agreement was “adopted and made a part of the decree by reference as the judgment herein.”
- Several years later, Porter filed a motion seeking an order to show cause and a civil contempt judgment, asserting that National had breached the Settlement Agreement and thereby violated the court’s 1968 order.
- The district court dismissed Porter’s contempt motion.
- Porter appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the dismissal and arguing that the 1968 order provided a sufficient basis for contempt.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s 1968 order approving a settlement and making it part of the judgment “by reference” constituted an injunction sufficiently specific under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) to support civil contempt for an alleged breach of the settlement.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Porter’s motion for an order to show cause and for civil contempt.
- The court held that, in view of Rule 65(d), the district court had not directed to defendants a sufficiently specific injunctive order such that noncompliance could serve as a basis for civil contempt.
- Because the 1968 order required looking outside the order itself (to the Settlement Agreement and related materials) to determine what conduct was restrained, it did not supply the type of clear judicial command needed to impose contempt sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), an injunction must be specific in its terms and must describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained or required, and it may not do so by reference to another document.
- Civil contempt is available only for violation of a clear and specific court order; it is not enough that a party allegedly breached a private settlement obligation unless the court’s order itself states the operative restraints with the required detail.
- A court order that merely approves a settlement and incorporates it “by reference” as a judgment generally does not meet Rule 65(d)’s requirements for contempt enforcement, even if the settlement contains detailed restrictions.
- When the scope of prohibited conduct can be determined only by consulting a separate agreement or its exhibits, the order lacks the clarity needed for contempt.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court’s 1968 order approving the parties’ Settlement Agreement and adopting it “by reference” did not meet Rule 65(d)’s specificity and “not by reference” requirements for an injunction; therefore, Porter could not use civil contempt to enforce the alleged settlement breach, and the dismissal of the contempt motion was affirmed.


H.K. Porter Co. v. National Friction Products, 568 F.2d 24 (1977)