N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EFR AIN REYNAGA, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OSEB UR G FOREST PR ODUC TS, an Ore g on c orporation,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 18-35655 D.C . No. 6:11-c v-06282-M C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l J. M c Shane , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Oc tobe r 25, 2019 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FAR

R IS, B EA, a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. Efra in R e yna ga

a p pe a ls the Distric t C ourt’ s judgm e nt in his e m ploy m e nt disc rim ination a c tion a g a inst Ro se burg Fore st Produc ts. Dire c te d ve rdic t wa s 

# FIL ED N OV 13 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.prope r a s to R e yna ga ’ s dispa ra te tre atm e nt loc ke r se arc h c la i m , a nd none of the
c ha lle nge d proc e dura l or e vide ntia ry de c isions we re an

a buse of disc re tion. A dire c te d

ve rdic t is prope r “ ‘ whe n the e v ide nc e pe rm its only one re a s ona ble c onc lusion a s to theve rdic t .’ ” Moorev . Loc a l Union 569 of Int’l Bhd. of Ele c . W

ork e r s , 989 F.2d 1534, 1537 (9th C ir. 1993) (quoting M c Gonigle v . C ombs , 968 F.2d 810, 816 (9th C ir. 1992)). No substa ntia l e vide nc e supporte d R e yna ga ’ s c onte n tion tha t he e xpe rie nc e d dispa

ra t e tre atm e nt. W itne s se s a gre e d that m a na ge m e nt e xe c ute d the loc ke r se arc h c onsiste ntly and only ope ne d a n e m ploy e e ’ s loc ke r if the dogs “ a le rte d” in front of it. No witne s s c ould c onfirm tha t
m ana ge m e nt de c line d to se a rc h a ny white e m ploy e e ’ s loc ke r a fte r the dogs in fa c t
a le rte d— a

showing upon whic

h R e yna ga ’ s dispa

ra t e tre atm e nt c la im

de pe nds. Se e

, e .g. , C ornw e ll v . Ele c tra C

e n t. C re dit Union , 439 F.3d 1018, 1028 (9th C ir. 2006) (c iting Mc

Donne ll Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). R e yna ga ’ s supple m e nta l e xc e rpts of re c ord do not c ha nge this a na ly sis. The only

re a sona ble
c onc lusion wa s tha

t R ose burg tre ate d R e yn a ga the sam e a s othe r e m

p loy e e s. The Distric t C ourt’ s se que stration orde r, whic h prohibite d only the disc ussion of ongoing te stim o ny during bre aks, did not pre judic e R e yna ga . C

f. Pe rry v . Le e k

e , 488 U.S. 272, 281–85 (1989).

2W e re vie w e v ide ntia ry rulings for a

n a buse of disc re t ion. Se e Sprint / Unite d Mgmt. C o. v . Me nde lsohn , 552 U.S. 379, 384 (2008). The re wa s no suc h a

b use he re . The Distric t C ourt did not err in e xc luding e vide nc e pe rta ining to the loc ke r se arc h, a s it c ould not ha

ve give n rise to a

ny re l e va nt infe re nc e . Nor did it e rr by
e xc luding e vide nc e re ga

rding R e yna ga ’ s job a ssignm e n ts. Tha t the ory wa s not inc l ude d in thepre tria l orde r. Se e U.S. v . First N at’l Bank of C

i rc le , 652 F.2d 882, 886 (9th C i r. 1981). The re wa s no e rror in the a dm ission of Re yna ga ’ s own ra c ia lly de rogatory

sta te m e nts. Se e

, e .g. , Hrobow

sk i v . W orthington Stee l C

o. , 358 F.3d 473, 476 (7th C ir. 2004); S c usa v . N e stle U.S.A. C o. , 181 F.3d 958, 966 (8th C ir. 1999). Sta te m e nts by

R e yna ga ’ s son a

nd M r. Hill re ga

rding fire arm s a

nd de rogatory

la ngua ge at the m ill we re irre le va

nt be c a use R e yn a ga

fa i le d to m ake an offe r of proof tha

t he wa s a ware of the offe re d inform at ion.

AFFIRM E D.

3