NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO, PhD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

IDAHOAN FOODS, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-35217 

D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00129-BLW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 31, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, PhD, appeals pro se from the district court’s 

summary judgment in his employment action alleging federal and state law claims. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of 

discretion. Wong v. Regents of University of California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 3 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35217 

Cir. 2005). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Kohler v. Bed 

Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

Kamdem-Ouaffo argues the district court abused its discretion by refusing to 

consider the screenshots of his spam e-mail folder. We disagree. The screenshot 

references are undated and do not refer to any particular position for which he says 

he applied. Moreover, the screenshots do not mention Idahoan as the company to 

which he claims they refer, and they are not accompanied by the applications to 

which he alleges they respond.

Kamdem-Ouaffo further argues that the district court abused its discretion 

by considering evidence concerning defendant’s applicant tracking system. We 

disagree. Information concerning this system was properly disclosed by defendant 

during discovery, and Kamdem-Ouaffo did not bring a motion to compel any 

additional disclosure. See Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(explaining that the plaintiff waived their challenge to defendant’s discovery 

objection by failing to bring a motion to compel); see also Lane v. Dep’t of 

Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court has wide latitude in 

controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be overturned in absence of a clear 

abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
3 18-35217 

Kamdem-Ouaffo’s request to strike portions of Dubreuil’s declaration, set 

forth in his opening brief, is denied.

This court has received from the district court complete copies of the 

exhibits attached to Kamdem-Ouaffo’s complaint and summary judgment 

opposition. The clerk shall file these exhibits, submitted at Docket Entry No. 28.

Kamdem-Ouaffo’s motion to file an oversized brief (Docket Entry No. 21) is 

granted in part. The clerk shall file Kamdem-Ouaffo’s reply brief submitted at 

Docket Entry No. 22. The remainder of this motion, and all other pending 

motions, are denied.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.