N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R ONALD S. AR

NOLD, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. SAM ’ S C L UB , Store #6603,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-35626 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-00028-R RB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska R a l ph R . B e istline , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 27, 2016 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. R ona ld S. Arnold a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt following a jury ve rdic t for de fe nda

nt Sa m ’ s C lub in his ne glige nc e a c t ion. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion the distric t c o urt’ s e v i de ntia

ry rulings. Mc

Euin v . C row n Equip. C

orp. , 328 F.3d 1028, 

# FIL ED OCT 06 2016 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1032 (9th C ir. 2003). W e a ffirm .

The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in e xc luding from e vide nc e va rious ite m s tha

t Arnold sought to a

dm i t be c a u se the e vide nc e wa s e ithe r not a uthe ntic ate d or irre le va

nt, or both. Se eFe d. R . Evid. 401, 901. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in e xc luding reports of othe r slip-a

nd-fa ll inc ide nts a

t Sam ’ s C lub be c a

use the re ports we re not a uthe ntic ate d, se e Fe d. R . Evid. 901, a nd Arnold fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t a ll of the inc i de nts oc c urre d unde r substa ntia lly sim ila

r c irc um sta

nc e s, se e Danie l v . C ole man C o. Inc . , 599 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th C ir. 2010) (sta ting tha t a “ showing of substa ntia l simila

rity is re q uire d whe n a

pla intiff a

tte m pts to introduc e e vide nc e of othe r a c c i de nts a s dire c t proof of ne glige nc e ” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

pa rtic ipating in the que stioning of Gene B loom in orde r to c la

rify Arnold’ s que stions a

nd to pre ve nt the undue re pe tition of te stim ony . Se eSw inton v . Potomac C orp. , 270 F.3d 794, 808 (9th C i r. 2001) (distric t c o urt ha s “ wide disc re tion to pa rtic ipate in the que stioning of witne s se s” an d “ [i] t is e ntire l y prope r for [the distric t c ourt] to pa rtic i pate in thee xam ination of witne sse s for the purpose of c la rify ing the e vide nc e , . . . c ontrolling the orde rly pre se ntation of thee vide n c e , a nd pre v e nting

1 4 - 3 5 6 2 6 2undue re pe tition of te stim ony ” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). To the e xte nt tha

t Arnold c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing his m otion to c om

pe l Sam ’ s C lub to produc e an Ala ska e m ploy e e m a

n ua l, the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion be c a

use Sam ’ s C lub re pre s e nte d tha t it ha d produc e d a ll of its writte

n m a i nte na

nc e polic ie s a

nd proc e dure s. Se eHalle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a dm itting into e

vide nc e the c ustom e r inc ide nt re port signe d by Arnold be c a

use Arnold sta

te d tha t he did not obje c t to its adm ission. Se e Mc Euin , 328 F.3d a

t 1032 (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie w); Unite d State

s v . Gw a ltne

y , 790 F.2d 1378, 1386 (9th C ir. 1986) (a pa rty who ha s stipula

te d to thea dm ission of e v ide nc e c annot la te r c om pla in a bout its a dm issibility

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

inform ing prospe c t ive jurors during voir dire

tha t Arnold is Afric an Am e ric an a n d a sking whe the r the y

c ould be fa ir to him . Se ePaine v . C ity of Lompoc , 160 F.3d 562, 564 (9th C i r. 1998) (“ A distric t judgeha s broa d disc re tion in how to c onduc t the voir dire , a nd we re vie w only for a buse of disc re tion.” ); id. (“ [V] oir dire ought to be a de quate to a s sure an im pa rtia l jury [.] ” ). The distric t c ourt’ s supple m e nta l instruc tions to the jury in re sponseto its

1 4 - 3 5 6 2 6 3que stions were not plainly e rrone ous be c a

use the instruc tions c orre c tly sta te d the a pplic a ble le ga l sta

n da rds. Se e C

.B. v . C ity of Sonora , 769 F.3d 1005, 1016-18 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba

nc ) (in c ivil c a s e s, whe re pa rty fa ils to obje c t

to jury instruc tions, c ourt re vie ws for pla in e rror: “ whe the r (1) the re wa s an e rror; (2) the e rror wa s obvious; a

nd (3) the e rror a ffe c te d substa ntia l rights” ). W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

by the re c o rd Arnold’ s c onte ntion tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously

“ re m ove d” punitivedam a ge s from the c a se be c a

use Arnold sought c om

pe nsatory dam a ge s only . W e do not c onside r issue s not spe c ific a lly and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in the o pe ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C i r. 2009). Arnold’ s July

27, 2015 re que st for a

n e xte n s ion of tim e to filethe re p ly brie f is gra nte d . The C l e rk sha l l file the re ply brie f re c e i ve d on Se pte m be r 30, 2015. All othe r pe nding re que sts a nd m o tions a

re de n ie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 5 6 2 6 4