Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): discovery. NYC admits that it did not provide its Initial Disclosures before the discovery deadline, however, NYC argues that: (1) it was awaiting information for use in its Initial Disclosures and alerted Empire to this fact; (2) the late disclosure was not in bad faith; and (3) regardless, the late disclosure contained information already provided in discovery, so no prejudice to Empire resulted. NYC denies that it did not produce a witness or that it did not provide additional documentation. Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a court to impose various sanctions when a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2); see also Transatlantic Bulk Shipping Ltd. v. Saudi Chattering S.A., 112 F.R.D. 185, 189 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that sanctions may be imposed 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing power of bankruptcy court under  105 of the code and bankruptcy rule 9020 to impose contempt sanctions for violations of automatic stay (B) recognizing power of bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on parties and counsel who willfully abuse the judicial process but not finding sanctions appropriate against debtor and his attorney for their repeated bankruptcy filings (C) recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal (D) holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291 (E) holding that under rule 37b  sanctions are appropriatefor defendants proven dishonesty and repeated violations of three court orders
Output (English): holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc  1291