In re: William Robert Norrie, CC-16-1002-KuKiTa

Debtor William Norrie failed to comply with a bankruptcy court Rule 2004 order to produce documents and appear for examination; the court entered multiple contempt orders (monetary awards to creditors Bliss and Mallen and an incarceration/remand until compliance).
Norrie did not comply with the contempt orders, left the country, and his direct appeal of the February 2015 contempt orders was dismissed for failure to prosecute; he did not timely appeal several post-contempt denials of his pro se motions.
Bankruptcy court repeatedly found Norrie non‑credible on promises to comply and refused to lift the incarceration provision unless and until he produced the 88 requested categories of documents.
Norrie filed four successive pro se motions to modify or vacate the contempt orders; the first three were denied without hearing for failure to show cause; the fourth was denied on Dec. 18, 2015, and Norrie appealed.
On appeal, the Panel held the contempt orders and the denials of the first three pro se motions were final and nonappealable here, limiting the scope of review to whether the incarceration sanction had become punitive because Norrie could no longer purge his contempt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this appeal may revisit issues decided in prior contempt orders and the earlier denials of pro se motions	Norrie argued various defects in the contempt orders and in the discovery requests; he sought relief under Rule 60(b) as to the contempt orders	Bliss & Mallen argued those matters were final, appealable earlier, and Norrie’s failure to timely appeal precludes collateral attack	Held: Most issues are barred — contempt orders and first three pro se denials are final; collateral attack is impermissible, so Panel lacks jurisdiction to revisit them
Whether the incarceration sanction is criminal (void) because Norrie can no longer purge his contempt	Norrie contended he cannot produce many documents from abroad and would be arrested on return, making purge impossible and turning the sanction punitive/criminal	Creditors and bankruptcy court pointed to Norrie’s long history of noncompliance and the court’s view that he still could produce documents (through counsel or otherwise); counsel were available to accept productions	Held: The court implicitly found Norrie still could purge; that factual finding is not clearly erroneous; sanction remains civil/coercive and denial of relief affirmed

Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003) (bankruptcy courts' contempt power is limited to civil contempt under § 105(a))
Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) (civil contempt is coercive where contemnor can purge; "carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket")
United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1994) (distinguishing civil coercive contempt from punitive criminal contempt)
SEC v. Elmas Trading Corp., 824 F.2d 732 (9th Cir. 1987) (standard of review for contempt factual findings)
Slimick v. Silva (In re Slimick), 928 F.2d 304 (9th Cir. 1991) (timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; subsequent orders do not revive appeal period)