Don Mehr; Don’s Bail Bonds; Bob Drake; Robert Miller; Orange County Bail Bonds v. the County of Orange, a Governmental Entity; SANDRA HUTCHENS, an individual

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DON MEHR; DON’S BAIL BONDS;
BOB DRAKE; ROBERT MILLER;
ORANGE COUNTY BAIL BONDS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, a
Governmental Entity; SANDRA
HUTCHENS, an individual,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-55414
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-01158-AG-AN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge. **
FILED
JUN 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their claim on summary judgment.
Counsel did not file a timely response to the Defendants’ Rule 36 requests for
admission or to the motion for summary judgment. The district court properly
exercised its discretion in striking the untimely filings. See C.D. Cal. R. 7-12
(allowing court to “decline to consider” untimely filings). Defendants were
entitled to summary judgment both on the basis of the deemed admissions and the
complete lack of timely submitted factual evidence countering Defendants’ claim
that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No discovery dispute
excused counsel’s obligation to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of the Central District of California .
Counsel also appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions. The court
appropriately sanctioned counsel for repeatedly filing ex parte motions requesting
relief that had previously been denied and after counsel had been admonished that
ex parte filings were improper. See, e.g., Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235 (9th
Cir. 1990) (holding that “continually moving for alterations in the district court’s
original judgment despite that court’s clear unwillingness to change its mind”
justified sanctions). The court also properly exercised its discretion in sanctioning
counsel for publicly filing documents counsel knew were subject to a protective
order requiring that they be filed under seal. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006) (sanctions appropriate for “party’s
disobedience to a specific and definite court order” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --