Overhyped. OSCs re contempt issue all the time. They are always phrased as “Show why you should not be” thrown in jail, or ordered to do x, y, or z.
This phrasing would suggest to someone not familiar with court procedures that the court has already reached a tentative decision to impose the penalty or order and it’s up to the person haled into court to dig his way out.
That’s not actually how it works.
Contempt, in particular, is a quasi-criminal proceeding which requires a criminal standard of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Gardner’s case, a beyond a reasonable doubt has not quite been reached. If she doesn’t show up with a very good explanation, don’t be surprised if the Judge sends her to jail.