T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA VI D LEGRAND KU NZ, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. SM I TH ’ S FO O D & D RU G CEN TERS I N C O R P O R A T E D , D B A F ry ’ s F ood S t or e s I nc orpor a t e d, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 15986 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 6 4 5 - G MS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona G . M urr a yS now , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 29, 2012 ** B efo re: H U G , F A R R IS , an d L E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D avi d K un z app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordergrant i ng sum m ary j u d g m en ti n h i s em p l o ym en tact i o n th atal l eg ed , am o n g o th er th i n g s, 

# FI LED NO V 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

di sc ri m i nat i on , ho st i l e w ork env i ronm ent , and ret al i at i on i n v i ol at i on of T i t l e V II a nd the A ge D i s c r i m i na t i on i n E m pl oy m e ntA c t( “ A D E A ” ) . H e a l s o appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de r s de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o pr oduc e r e que s t e d i nf orm a t i on, m ot i ons t o a dd w i tne s s , a nd m ot i on f orappoi ntm e ntof

c ouns e l . W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , w e a f f irm . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ag r a n t o f s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. B e e ne v . T e rhune , 380 F . 3d 11 49 , 11 50 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the di stri ct c ourt ’ s de ni a l of

pl a i nt i f f’ s m ot i ons t o pr oduc e r e que s t e d i nf orm a t i on a nd t o a dd w itn e s s , John son v. M

am m oth R ec re at i on s, Inc. , 97 5 F . 2d 60 4, 60 7 (9th C i r. 19 92 ), a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f p la in tif f’s m o tio n f

o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l. J o h n s o n v . U

.S. T r e a s u r yD e p t. , 2 7 F. 3 d 4 1 5 , 4 1 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton K unz ’ s a ge di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m . B e c aus e K unz f a i l e d t o t i m e l yf

i l e ac ha r ge of d is c r im in a tio n , o n lyh is c o n s tru c tiv e d is c h a r g e c la im is tim e ly . Na t ’ l R. R. P as s e nge rC or

p. v . Mor

gan , 5 3 6 U . S . 1 0 1 , 1 1 3 (2 0 0 2 ). T h atcl ai m fai l s b ecau se K un z f ai l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether he w as r e pl a c e d byas ubs t a nt i a l l yy ounge re m pl oy e e w i th e qua l ori nf e r i orqua l i f

i c a t i ons ordi s c ha r ge d unde rc i r c um s t a nc e s othe rw i s e gi vi ng r i s e t o a n i nf e r e nc e of a ge3

d is c r im in a tio n . See M

cD on nel l D ou glas C orp. v. G re en , 41 1 U . S . 79 2 (19 73 ); D ia zv . E a g le P r o du c e L td. P ’s h ip , 52 1 F . 3d 12 01 , 12 07 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te d s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n K u n z ’s h o s tile w ork env i ronm entcl ai m because K un z f ai l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al f a c ta s t o w he the rthe a l l e ge d c onduc tw a s s e ve r e orpe rva s i ve e nough t o a l t e rthe c o n d itio n s o f

K u n z ’s e m p lo y m e n t. Se e Ma n a t t v . B a n k o f A m. , 339 F . 3d 792, 799 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( a f

f i rm i ng s um m a ryj udgm e ntf ore m pl oy e ron T i t l e V I I c l a i m of h o s tile w o rke n v ir o n m e n t) ; B rooks v . C i t y of Sa n Mat eo , 2 2 9 F .3 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 3 ( 9 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( “ In order t o p re vai l on her host i l e w ork env i ronm entcl ai m , [apl ai nt i ff ] m ustshow thather w orkp l ac e w as perm ea t ed w i th d i sc ri m i nat ory i nt i m i dat i on that w as suff i ci ent l y s ever e or pervasi ve t o al t erthe cond i t i on s of herem pl oym ent ”) (bra cket s, el l i pses , and q uo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te d s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n K u n z ’s e f f o rt to st at e acl ai m un der hi s c ol l ec t i ve bargai ni ng agre em entbecause K un z provi ded on l y c on cl usory a l l egat i on s and fa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al fa ctas to w h e th e rh e h a d e x h au s te d h is r e m e d ie s . See Sorem ekun v. T hri f t y P ayles s, Inc. , 50 9 F . 3d 97 8, 98 5-86 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( pri or t o b ri ng i ng an ac t i on , an em pl oyee seek i n g t o v i n d i cat e p erso n al ri g h t s u n d er a co l l ect i v e b arg ai n i n g ag reem en tm u st sh o w ex h au st i o n o f g ri ev an ce p ro ced u res) ; A nge l v . Se at tle - Fi rs t

N at ’ l B ank , 6534

F . 2d 1293, 1299 ( 9th C i r . 1981) ( “ m e r e c onc l us orya l l e ga t i ons uns upport e d by fa ctual dat a” cann otdefe atm ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te d s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n K u n z ’s c la im b ro u g h tp u rsu an tt o th e A ri zo n a E m p l o ym en tP ro t ect i o n A ct(“ A E P A ”) b ecau se the cl ai m i s t i m e- barr ed and n otac t i on abl e und erthe A E P A . A . R . S . § 1 2-54 1(4); Lo m b a rd iv . Co

p p e rCa n y o n Ac a d. , LLC , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 7 7 5 4 0 8 , * 6 ( D . A r iz . S e p t. 21 , 20 10 ) ( “ al l egat i on s i nv ol vi ng [F am i l y and M edi ca l L ea ve A ct ] vi ol at i on s are notw i thi n the pa r a m e t e r s of the A E P A ” ) ( c i t i ng G alat iv . A m . W . A i r l i ne s , I

nc . , 69 P . 3d 10 11 , 10 14 (A ri z. C t . A pp . 20 03 )) . A pp el l ee cont ends thatw e m ayno taddres s K un z’ s c hal l enges t o the di stri ct court ’ s deni al of ce rt ai n m ot i on s bec ause he di d n otfi l e at i m el y not i ce of appeal f orthos e m ot i ons . H ow e ve r , be c aus e K unz f i l e d at i m e l ynot i c e of

appe a l f r om the or de rgr a nt i ng s um m a ryj udgm e nt , he ha s f i l e d at i m e l ynot i c e of

appe a l f orthe O r d e r s . Se e C ohe n v . B e ne f i c i al I ndus . L oan C or

p. , 33 7 U . S . 54 1, 54 6 (19 49 ); B al la v . I

daho State B d. of

C orr e c t i ons , 86 9 F . 2d 46 1, 46 8 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g K u n z ’s M o tio n s to A d d W i tn ess an d M o t i o n fo r D efen d an tt o P ro d u ce R eq u est ed In fo rm at i o n b ecau se the m ot i ons w e r e f

i l e d a f t e rthe c l os e of

di s c ove rya nd no good c aus e w a s gi ve n f or th e iru n tim e lin e s s . Se e J ohns on , 9 7 5 F .2 d a t 6 0 7 .5

T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng K unz ’ s M ot i on f or A p p o in tm e n t o f

C o u n s e l b e c au s e th e tr ia l c o u rt c o rr e c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t K u n z d id nots how al i ke l i hood of s uc c e s s on the m e r i t s a nd tha tthe i s s ue s a ttr i a l w e r e not c o m p le x e n o u g h to s h o w th e e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s n e c e s s a ryin o r d e rto ap p o in t c o u n s e l. Se e W i lborn v . Es c alde r on , 78 9 F . 2d 13 28 , 13 31 (9th C i r. 19 86 ). W e r e j e c tthe r e m a i nde rof

K unz ’ s a r gum e nt s f

orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d bythe di s tr i c tc ourt . K unz ’ s m ot i on t o r e m a nd i s de ni e d. A FFI R M ED .