N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTHONY ADR

IAN; M AR IA M
. ADR IAN, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. ONEW EST B ANK, FSB , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 15-15583 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00189-FJM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Fre de ric k J. M artone , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h 14, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, M c KEOW N, a nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. Anthony and M aria

Adria n (Adria ns) a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa

vor of One W e st B ank, FSB (One W e st) following a jury tria l. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 

# F IL ED APR 03 2017 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.The Adria ns a rgue first tha

t the distric t

c o urt should ha

ve a llowe d the m

to de pose One W e st’ s c orporate re pre se ntative a fte r the disc ove ry de a dline e sta

blishe d in the sc he duling orde r. This a rgum e nt c ha lle nge s two of thedistric t c ourt’ s orde rs. The first orde r re

je c te d the pa

rtie s’ stipula

te d e x te nsion of the disc ove ry de a dline , and the se c ond de nie d the Adria ns’ m otion for a dditiona l disc o v e ry unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 56(d). B oth de c isions a re re vie w e d for a

buse of disc re tion. Zivk ov ic v . S. C

al. Edison C

o. , 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th C i r. 2002) (m otion to
m odify sc he duling orde r); Qualls e x re l . Qualls v . Blue

C ross of C al., Inc
. , 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th C ir. 1994) (m otion to c onduc t a dditiona l disc o ve ry ). Although the pa

rtie s sty le d the ir a gre e d e xte nsion a s a stipula tion to e xte nd the d isc ove ry

de a dline , the distric t c ourt prope rly tre ate d it a s a joint m otion be c a use the judge m

ust c onse nt to a

ny m odific ation of a

sc he duling orde r. Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 16(b)(4). Furthe rm ore , a sc he duling orde r “ m ay

be m o difie d only for good
c a use .” Id. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by c onc luding tha t the pa rtie s ha d fa ile d to c arry

tha t burde n be c a

use the only

sta te d ba s is for the
e xte nsion wa s “ c onflic ts c a use d by othe r c a se s.” On a

ppe a l, the Adria

ns a sse rt tha

t the p artie s re que ste d the e xte nsion be c a use One W e s t ha d not produc e d its
c orporate re pre se ntative tim e ly to be de pose d. The re is nothing in the re c o rd, howe v e r, to show tha

t the pa rtie s inform e d the distric t c ourt of this problem be fore 2it re

je c te d the stipula

tion. W e will not re ve rse the distric t c ourt for fa iling to
a c c ount for inform a tion tha t wa s not be fore it. S

e e Solis v . Mathe

son , 563 F.3d 425, 437 (9th C ir. 2009). As a ge ne ra l m a tte r, we e nc oura ge pa rtie s to c oope ra te in re solving this sort of issue . If the y

c an do so without c ourt inte rve ntion, so m uc h the be tte r. B ut a

t
som e point, a

pa rty m ust a c t to prote c t its intere st in obtaining ne c e ssa ry disc ove ry . The Adria

ns did not use

any of the ava i la

ble options to notify

the c ourt of the ir pre d ic am e nt until the

ve ry e nd of the disc ove ry pe riod, a nd e ve n the n

only a dvise d the c ourt tha

t the de la y wa s c a use d by the attorne y s ’ workloa ds. This is not
a de quate dilige nc e . Se e Zivk ov ic , 302 F.3d a

t 1087–88. At the

sa m e tim e , One W e st’ s c onduc t in hiding be hind thesc he duling orde r a fte r it fa ile d to produc e its c o rporate re pre se ntative tim e ly is not some t

hing tha t should be

e m ulate d e ithe r. Ne ithe r party

a c t e d a s it should ha

ve , but the distric t c ourt c annot be fa ulte d for the
re sult be c a

use the pa rtie s did not provide

it with the

ne c e ssa ry inform ation. Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion by de ny ing the Adria ns’ subse q ue nt R ule 56(d) m otion for a d ditiona l disc ove ry . Suc h a m otion ne e d only be grante d whe re “ the m ova nt dilige ntly pursue d its pre vious disc ove ry opportunitie s.” Qualls , 22 F.3d a t 844 (e m pha sis om i tte d). As with the stipula tion to e x te nd disc ove ry , nothing in the re c ord at the tim e the distric t c ourt rule d 3supporte d a

finding tha

t the Adria

ns ha d dilige ntly

pursue d the ir pre vious opportunitie s. Ac c ordingly , the y we re not e ntitle d to a dditiona l disc ove ry unde r R ule 56(d). Ne xt, the Adria

ns c onte nd tha

t the distric t

c o urt should ha

ve e xc l ude d the te stim ony of Justin R

oc k, One W e st’ s c orporat e re pre se n tative , and re c ordings of
c a lls be twe e n M r. Adria

n a nd One W e s t tha

t we re not disc lose d until long afte r the
sc he duling orde r’ s de a dline
. In both insta nc e s, the Adria

ns sought e xc lusion a s a sa nc tion for One W e st’ s a lle ge d disc ove ry viola tions. Ac c ordingly , we re vie w for
a buse o f disc re tion. Se e Ye ti by Molly , Ltd. v . De c k

e r s Outdoor C

orp. , 259 F.3d 1101, 1105–06 (9th C ir. 2001). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a llowing Roc k to te stify be c a use the re is no e vide nc e t

hat the late disc losure of R oc k’ s ide ntity pre judic e d the A dria ns. Se e W e ndt v . Host Int’l, Inc
. , 125 F.3d 806, 814 (9th C i r. 1997) (ide ntify ing “ risk of pre

j udic e ” to pa

rty a ffe c te d by disc o ve ry

viola tion a s re le va

nt fa c t or in re vie wing distric t c ourt’ s im position of sa

n c tion). The Adria

ns did not
ne e d to know Roc k’ s ide ntity to notic e a

de position of One W e st’ s c orporate
re pre se ntative , se eFe d. R . C iv. P. 30(b)(6), a nd One W e st disc lose d e arly on tha t the “ Pe rson M ost Knowle dge a ble for One W e s t B ank” would like ly hav e disc ove ra ble inform a tion. Sinc e R o c k te stifie d only in a re pre se ntative c a

pa c ity for 4One W e st, it is not c l e ar what othe r disc ove ry the Adria ns c ould ha

v e c onduc te d with re spe c t to him othe r tha n tha t a uthoriz e d by

R ule 30(b)(6). Abse nt pre

judic e , the re wa s no a

buse of disc re tion. The a dm ission of the

c a ll re c ordings sole ly

for im pe a c hm e nt purpose s, e ve n if a n a buse of disc re tion, wa s ha rm le ss in light of the

othe r e vide nc e tha

t One W e st introduc e d at tria l to im

pe a c h the Adria

ns’ c re dibility
. This e vide nc e inc lude d the Adria n s’ a pplic a tion for a

loa n m odific ation unde r the Hom e Afforda ble M odific ation Progra

m (HAM P), M r. Adria

n’ s writte n c orre sponde nc e de sc ribing his fa m ily ’ s dire fina

nc ia l situa

tion, a nd One W e st’ s le tte rs to the Adria ns indic a ting tha

t the y m ight not be

e ligiblefor a

HAM P m odific ation. B e c a use “ it is
m ore proba

ble tha n not tha t the jury would ha ve re a c he d the sa

m e ve rdic t” e ve n without the

c a ll re c o rdings, we will not re ve rse the judgm e nt. Obre y v . J ohnson , 400 F.3d 691, 701 (9th C ir. 2005); se e also United State s v . 1,071.08 Ac re

s of Land , 564 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th C ir. 1977) (“ [T] he a dm ission of im prope r e vide nc e is to beignore d unle ss substa ntia l rights of the

pa rtie s a re the re b y
a ffe c te d” ). The distric t c ourt did not err by granting judgme nt a s a m atte r of la w on the Adria n s’ re que st for punitive

dam a ge s. Se e Saman v
. Robbins , 173 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ W e re v i e w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting . . . judgm e nt 5a s a m a tte r of la w de nov o ” ). The Adria

ns pre se nte d no e vide nc e tha t One W e st ha d
an “ e vil m ind” a s re quire d to obta in punitive dam a g e s unde r Ariz ona

la w . Raw lings v . Apodac a , 726 P.2d 565, 578 (Ariz . 1986). Furthe rm ore , a re que st for punitive dam a g e s is not a sta nd a lone c l a im , but is inste a d “ ine xtric a bly linke d” to
an unde rly ing c a

use of a c tion. S

e e Sise morev . Farme rs Ins. C o. of Ariz. , 779 P.2d 1303, 1305 (Ariz . C t. App. 1989). The jury re turne d ve rdic ts for One W e st on a ll of the A dria ns’ c la im s, so the re is no lia bility to whic h the punitivedam a ge s c ould
a tta c h at this point. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt prope rly

grante d judgm e nt a s a
m a tte r of la

w. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion by re fusing to give an
a dve rse infe re n c e instruc tion a s a sa nc tion for One W e st’ s fa i lure to disc lose a ll c a ll logs re lat ing to theAdria

ns’ loa ns. The re is no e vide n c e that One W e st fa ile d to disc lose t he se c ond c a ll log in bad fa ith, so a n a dve rse infe re nc e instruc tion wa s not re quire d. C

f. Me d. Lab. Mgmt. C

onsultants v. Am. Broad. C os., Inc
. , 306 F.3d 806, 824 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ Whe n re le va nt e v ide nc e is lost a c c ide nta l ly or for a n innoc e nt re a son, a

n a d v e rse e v ide ntia

ry infe re nc e from

the loss m ay

be re je c te d” ). AFFIRM E D.

6