N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NATHALIE THUY VAN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. W AL-M AR T STORES, INC .,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . Nos. 15-15070 15-15571 15-16029 D.C . No. 5:08-c v-05296-PSG
M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Pa ul S. Gre wa l, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW KINS an d M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED FEB 28 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a s e is suita b l e for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Natha lie Thuy Van (“ Van” ) a

p pe a ls the judgm e nt, e n te re d a fte r a jury tria l,
a ga inst W a l-M a

rt Store s, Inc . (W a l-M a

rt” ). W e have jurisdic tion ove r this a ppe a l pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
.

I The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

e xc luding Va

n’ s m e dic a l bills a nd W a l -M a

rt’ s fina nc ia l doc um e nts. Thedistric t c ourt found tha t he r fa ilure to disc lose pa

rtic ula riz e d m e dic a l e xpe nse s a

nd fina nc ia l doc um e nts supporting he r punitive dam a g e s c om

puta tion wa s both untime ly

and pre judic i a l to W a l-M art. The re c ord supports the

distric t c ourt’ s c o nc lusion. Va n did not provide

the disc losure within the disc ove ry de a dline e s ta

blishe d by

the c ourt, nor did she supple m e nt he r disc ove ry answe rs, a s she wa s obliga t e d to do. Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 26(e )(1)(A). “ If a

pa rty fa ils to provide

inform ation or ide n t ify

a witne ss a s re quire d by

R ule 26(a ) or (e ), the pa

rty is not a l lowe d to use that inform at ion or witne s s to supply

e vide nc e on a

m otion, a

t a he aring, or a

t a tria l, unle ss the fa ilure
wa s substa

ntia l ly justifie d or is ha

rm le ss.” Fe d. R . C i v. P. 37(c )(1). “ R ule 37(c )(1) is a ‘ se l f-e xe c uting,’ ‘ a

utom atic ’ sa

nc tion de signe d to providea strong induc e m e n t for disc losure .” Goodman v . Staple s the Offic e Supe rstore

, LLC , 644 F.3d 817, 827 (9th C i r. 2011) (c i ting Ye ti by Molly , Ltd. v . De c k

e rs Outdoor C

orp ., 259 F.3d

21101, 1106 (9th C ir. 2001); Fe d . R . C iv. P. 37 a dvisory c om m i tte e ’ s note to 1993
am e ndm e nt). Van ha s not shown tha

t he r untim e ly

disc losure wa s e ithe r substa ntia lly justifie d or ha

rm le ss, Fe d. R . C iv. P. 37(c )(1), so the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in e xc luding thete nde re d e vide nc e pursua nt to R ule 37(c )(1). II The distric t c ourt did not err in instruc ting thejury on the de finition of fa lse im prisonm e nt or by

supple m e nting a

jury instruc tion in re sponse to a jury que stion. The fa lse im

p risonm e nt instruc tion give n to thejury by the m a gistra

te judge tra c ke d a l m ost ve rbatim

the C a lifornia

patte rn instruc t ion a

nd wa s a c orre c t sta te m e nt of C a lifornia la

w . M ore ove r, the instruc tion wa s a gre e d to by Va n’ s c ounse l a nd pre se nte d to thedistric t c ourt in thepa rtie s’ joint propose d jury instruc tions. The distric t c ourt did not err in its re sponse to two jury que stions. After c onsulting with c ounse l, the judge instruc t e d the jury tha t “ [e ] a c h of the se que stions is for you to de c ide ,” and provide d the jury with the la

n gua g e of the
re le va nt sta tute . The supple m e n ta l instruc tion wa s ne ithe r c onfusing nor pre j udic i a l. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion. III
3The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting W a l-M art R

ule 68 post-offe r-ofjudgm e nt c osts. “U nde r R ule 68, if a

pla intiff re

je c ts a de fe nda n t’ s offe r of judgm e nt, a

nd the judgm e nt fina lly

obta ine d by

pla intiff is not m

ore favora

ble tha n the o ffe r, the pla i ntiff m

ust pa y the c osts inc urre d subse que n t to theoffe r. The
award is m andatory ; R

ule 68 le ave s no room

for the c ourt’ s disc re tion. ” Unite d State s v . Tride nt Se afoods C

orp. , 92 F.3d 855, 859 (9th C i r. 1996) (c iting Libe rty Mutual Ins. C

o. v . EEOC, 691 F.2d 438, 442 (9th C ir. 1982) (footnote om itte d)). B e fore tria l, W a l-M art se rve d a n offe r of judgm e nt on Va n in a n am o unt tha

t e xc e e de d the ultim ate jury ve rdic t. Va

n re je c te d the offe r of judgm e nt. The re fore W a l-M art wa s e ntitle d to post-offe r c osts. Thedistric t c o urt c onc lude d tha

t W a l
M art wa s e ntitle d to re a sona ble c osts unde r R

ule 68, but it found the

m a jority of W a l-M art’ s c la im e d c osts to beunjustifie d. Afte r subtra c t ing the c osts it found to be unjustifie d, the distric t c ourt a warde d W a l-M art $1,736.81 in post-offer-ofjudgm e nt c osts. Va

n ha s not de m onstra

te d the distric t c ourt e rre d in a ny re spe c t by doing so. IV The re m a i nde r of Van’ s a rgum e nts on a

p pe a l we re e ithe r ra ise d in he r brie fs but not identifie d

in he r notic e s of a

p pe a l, or ide ntifie d in thenotic e s of a ppe a l but
a ba ndone d in he r brie fs. B e c a u se R u le 3(c )(1)(B ) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of
4Appe l lat e Proc e dure re quire s the notic e of a ppe a l to “ de signa

t e the judgm e n t, orde r, or pa

rt the re of be ing a

p p e a le d,” and sinc e “ we will not ordina rily c onside r m atte rs on a

ppe a l tha t a re not spe c ific a l ly

an d distinc tly

argue d in a

ppe lla nt’ s ope ning brie f,” K

im v
. K ang , 154 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th C i r. 1998) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d), we de c line to a ddre ss the m e rits of Va n’ s re m a ining a

rgum e nts. AFFIRM E D.

5