Case Name: Stephen T. HARRIS; David Woolsey, Petitioners-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-10
Citations: 468 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 10-56473
Parties: Stephen T. HARRIS; David Woolsey, Petitioners-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 472
Pages: 686–687

Head Matter:
Stephen T. HARRIS; David Woolsey, Petitioners-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-56473.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 8, 2012.
Filed Feb. 10, 2012.
Roger Sandberg Hanson, Esquire, Roger S. Hanson, Esq., Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants.
Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellants Stephen Harris and David Woolsey seek to compel the bankruptcy court to provide a hearing to challenge a temporary restraining order requiring them to produce certain evidence for imaging. The bankruptcy court's order complied with the requirements for issuing an ex parte temporary restraining order, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b), and presents no Fourth Amendment problems. Thus, the district court properly denied appellants' petition for a writ of mandamus. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 408 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2005).
Appellants also contend that the district court erred by imposing sanctions on appellants' attorney in the form of attorneys' fees to opposing counsel. The notice of appeal does not list their attorney as an appellant or otherwise make clear that the sanction order is being appealed. See Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(A), (c)(4). We thus lack jurisdiction to disturb the sanction order.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.