Once an alleged contemnor’s noncompliance with a court order is established, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to “produce sufficient evidence of [its] inability
comply to raise a question of fact.” United States v. Rylander, 656 F.2d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981), rev'd on other grounds, 460 U.S. 752 (1983). If the alleged contemnor does
not raise a question of fact through affidavits, and does not seek the opportunity to present its defense through live testimony, a court does not violate that party’s due process rights by holding it in contempt solely based on affidavits.
See Thomas, Head, 95 F.3d at 1458