In re: MAUREEN C. REDMOND; JOHN A. REDMOND v. Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., LLC

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MAUREEN C. REDMOND; JOHN
A. REDMOND,
Debtors,
JOHN A. REDMOND; MAUREEN C.
REDMOND,
Appellants,
v.
SULPHUR MOUNTAIN LAND AND
LIVESTOCK CO., LLC,
Appellee.
No. 11-55827
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02552-CJC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2013
Pasadena, California
FILED
FEB 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for**
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2
Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, Senior District
Judge.**
John and Maureen Redmond appeal from the district court’s order affirming
a decision by the bankruptcy court to issue terminating sanctions and enter
judgment against them. The bankruptcy court put the Redmonds on notice that
failure to comply with its October 27, 2009, order granting Sulphur Mountain’s
motion to compel would result in terminating sanctions. The Redmonds thereafter
failed to produce all responsive documents by the court-ordered deadline, redacted
others without court approval, and refused to answer questions at their depositions
without having been so instructed by their counsel. The court’s decision to issue
terminating sanctions based on this conduct, combined with the Redmonds’ long
history of discovery obstruction and repeated failures to comply with prior court
orders, was not an abuse of discretion. See Conn. General Life Ins. Co. v. New
Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). Although the
Redmonds challenge several aspects of the October 27, 2009, order, they have
identified no error that would undermine the validity of the court’s decision to
issue terminating sanctions.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --