Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in entering contempt order and sanctioning defendant $34,905 in attorney fees and costs associated with plaintiff’s efforts to obtain contempt order arising out of allegations that defendant had violated terms of prior consent judgment by continuing to infringe on plaintiff’s trademark. Record showed that defendant’s counsel failed to file written response to plaintiff’s motion for issuance of contempt order and failed to appear at hearing on plaintiff’s motion. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly sanction defendant for its counsel’s failure to file response or attend hearing, and fact that defendant eventually filed motion to reconsider issuance of instant sanction did not relieve it of any contempt sanction. Moreover, Dist. Ct. was not required to grant defendant’s motion for reconsideration, where defendant merely alleged that its local and national counsel had miscommunication as to who would file response and attend hearing.