Case Name: Barry KELLY; Molly Kelly, Plaintiffs, and Gilbert L. Purcell, Counsel for Plaintiffs, Appellant, v. CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-21
Citations: 696 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 15-16457
Parties: Barry KELLY; Molly Kelly, Plaintiffs, and Gilbert L. Purcell, Counsel for Plaintiffs, Appellant, v. CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WATTERS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 291–292

Head Matter:
Barry KELLY; Molly Kelly, Plaintiffs, and Gilbert L. Purcell, Counsel for Plaintiffs, Appellant, v. CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-16457
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed August 21, 2017
Richard M. Grant, Brayton Purcell LLP, Novato, CA, for Appellant
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WATTERS, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Susan P. Watters, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Attorney Gilbert Purcell appeals the district court's order imposing sanctions against him for conduct demonstrating bad faith. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.
The district court correctly observed that: (1) the question whether chemotherapy exacerbated Barry Kelly's pre-existing kidney condition was contested at trial; (2) Purcell explicitly told the court that Dr. ' Horn would not testify that Kelly's "kidney problems were caused or exacerbated by the chemo" and conceded that such issue "wasn't evaluated] in [Horn's] Rule 26 report"; and (3) Purcell then intentionally attempted to have Dr. Horn testify on this issue at trial.
The district court did not clearly err in determining that such conduct demonstrated that Purcell acted in bad faith by attempting to "sneak" in Dr. Horn's testimony. See, e.g., Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 961, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court finding that attorney acted in bad faith reviewed for clear error); Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000) (same); see also Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) ( [Bjad faith ,.. includes a broad range of willful improper conduct."),
AFFIRMED.
This disposition- is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.