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

nt, v. US DEPAR T M ENT OF HOM ELAND SEC UR ITY OFFIC E OF EQUAL EM PLOYM ENT OPPOR TUNITY AND INC LUSION; U.S. DEPARTM ENT OF HOM ELAND SEC UR ITY; ALEJANDRO N. M AYOR

KAS, Se c re ta

ry of the De pa rtm e nt of Hom e la

n d Se c urity , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-35933 D.C . No. 3:21-c v-00720-M O 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 i c ha e l W . M osm a

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 10, 2024 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED MAY10 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pla intiff Sa ra B a a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e n t dism issing his a c tion a s a

sa nc tion for his disc ove ry

m isc onduc t. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v). W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion, 1 and we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing B a ’ s a c tion be c a use B a willfully

2 e nga ge d in e va sive c onduc t at two depositions a

nd re fuse d to c om ply with thec ourt’ s orde r that he answe r que stions. Se e Toth , 862 F.2d a t 1385; se e also C

onn. Ge n. Life

Ins. C o. v . N e w Image s of Be v e r ly

Hills , 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2007). B a ’ s m isc onduc t c onsum e d tim e tha t the distric t c ourt c ould ha v e de vote d to othe r m atte rs, pre judic e d the de fe nse , a

nd pe rsiste d de spite the d istric t c o urt’ s wa

rning tha t his a c tion c ould be dism isse d . Se e Pagtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 642–43 (9th C ir. 2002); Adriana Int’l C o rp. v . Thoe re n , 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th C ir. 1990); Toth , 862 F.2d a t 1385. M o re ove r, B a

did not argue — i n the distric t c ourt or on a ppe a l— that a ny a lte rnat ive sa

nc tion would ha

ve se c ure d his c om

p l ia nc e with theFe de ra l R

ule s 3 and the c o urt’ s orde r. Se e Mone y mak e r v . C o B e n (In reEise n) , 31 F.3d 1447, 1455 (9th C ir. 1994); Ande rson

1 Se e Toth v . Trans W

orld Airline

s , Inc . , 862 F.2d 1381, 1385 (9th C ir. 1988); s e e also United State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). 2 Se e J orge nse n v . C

assiday , 320 F.3d 906, 912 (9th C i r. 2003). 3 Se e , e .g. , Fe d. R . C iv. P. 26(a )(3)(A)(i)–(ii), 26(b)(1), 30(c )(2). 2v . Air W

., Inc . , 542 F.2d 522, 525–26 (9th C ir. 1976). There c ord thus supports the distric t c o urt’ s c o n c lusion tha t dism issa l wa s a

ppropria te unde r our five -fa c tor te s t. Se e C onn. Ge n. Life

Ins. C o. , 482 F.3d a

t 1096–97; Yourish v . C

al. Amplifier , 191 F.3d 983, 990–92 (9th C ir. 1999). W e do not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l or m atte rs not spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in the ope n ing brie f. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

3