Reiff

MEMORANDUM **

Cathryn Reiff appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment denying her request for a discharge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d), and we affirm.

*696 We review de novo the BAP’s legal conclusions. United States Trustee v. Garvey, Schubert & Barer (In re Century Cleaning Servs., Inc.), 195 F.3d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir.1999). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s rulings on appeal from the BAP. Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Bd. of Equalization (In re Cool Fuel, Inc.), 210 F.3d 999, 1001-02 (9th Cir.2000). The imposition of discovery sanctions under Rule 37 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir.1997).

Because Reiff failed to make initial and pretrial disclosures of the lists of witnesses and documents relevant to disputed facts as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, failed to meet and confer with the Trustee as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 7026-1, and failed to demonstrate substantial compliance or that her acts were harmless, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Reiffs evidence and witnesses at the discharge trial. See Fed.…