Court Opinion

ID: 9943041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 18:01:31.316075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:59.713471
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
         FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRANSAMERICA LIFE                                 No. 22-55199
INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                                D.C. No. 2:20-cv-
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,            04684-ODW-JEM
    v.

AKOP ARUTYUNYAN; ANAHIT                             OPINION
ARUTYUNYAN,

                 Defendants-Appellants.

         Appeal from the United States District Court
            for the Central District of California
         Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

              Argued and Submitted June 7, 2023
                    Pasadena, California

                    Filed February 22, 2024

    Before: Milan D. Smith, Jr., David F. Hamilton, * and
             Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges.

                    Opinion by Judge Collins

*
 The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
2          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

                          SUMMARY **

                Sanctions / Default Judgment

    The panel affirmed the district court’s default judgment
entered against defendants Akop and Anahit Arutyunyan in
an action brought by Transamerica Life Insurance Company
alleging defendants engaged in insurance fraud.
    The district court concluded that defendants repeatedly
failed to obey court orders related to discovery and entered
default judgment against them. The district court also
entered distinct sanctions on defendants in two separate
orders.
    The panel upheld the district court’s order deeming
defendants’ objection to certain items of discovery to be
forfeited and requiring production of those items. By failing
to present any sufficient argument in their opening brief as
to why the district court’s stated grounds for that decision
were erroneous, defendants forfeited any challenge to that
order on appeal.
    The panel held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in entering a default judgment as a sanction for
defendants’ violations of court orders. The panel considered
whether the district court’s analysis properly considered the
factors in Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130
(9th Cir. 1987), for entering a default judgment. The first
two factors—the public’s interest in expeditious resolution
of litigation and the court’s need to manage its docket—

**
  This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN         3

plainly favored entry of default on this record. The third
factor—the risk of prejudice to the other party—favored a
default judgment where defendants failed to comply with an
order to produce specific discovery materials, and this
created a sufficient risk of prejudice. The fourth factor—
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits—
weighed against default judgment, but it provided only little
support for that conclusion. The fifth factor—the
availability of less drastic sanctions—favored a default
judgment because the district court implemented lesser
sanctions before ordering a default and warned defendants
of such a judgment if the non-compliance continued.
     The panel held that this appeal is frivolous. In view of
its frivolous nature, and the multiple misstatements made by
counsel at oral argument, by separate order the panel ordered
defendants and their counsel to show cause why sanctions
should not be imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1912, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1927, Fed. R. App. P. 38, and/or the inherent authority of
this court.

                        COUNSEL

Ara J. Keropian, I, (argued), AJK Law Firm, Van Nuys,
California, for Defendants-Appellants.
Michael D. Rafalko (argued) and Allison B. Goldis, Cozen
O’ Connor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Valerie D. Rojas,
Cozen O’ Connor, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-
Appellee.
4          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

                            OPINION

COLLINS, Circuit Judge:

    Plaintiff-Appellee Transamerica Life Insurance
Company (“Transamerica”) sued Defendants-Appellants
Akop Arutyunyan and his daughter Anahit Arutyunyan 1 for
allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to defraud Transamerica
into paying benefits under a long-term care insurance policy.
Concluding that Defendants had repeatedly failed to obey
court orders related to the discovery process, the district
court ultimately entered default judgment against them.
Defendants have timely appealed the judgment, but their
arguments in this court are frivolous. Moreover, when called
upon to defend his disregard of the district court’s orders,
Defendants’ counsel at oral argument in this court made
multiple blatantly false statements about his and his clients’
responses to those orders. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment and, by separate order, we direct Defendants and
their counsel to show cause why they should not be
sanctioned.
                                  I
                                 A
    In March 2016, Transamerica issued a life insurance
policy to Anahit, which covered her father, Akop, as the
“Insured.” The policy included a “Comprehensive Long
Term Care Insurance Rider,” under which Transamerica
generally agreed to “pay a Monthly Long Term Care Benefit
when the Insured has incurred expenses for Qualified Long

1
  Because Defendants share the same last name, we will hereafter refer
to each of them by their respective first names, “Akop” and “Anahit.”
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN            5

Term Care Services.” One of the requirements for triggering
this long-term care coverage was that the Insured qualify as
a “Chronically Ill Individual.” As defined in the rider, that
term required, inter alia, that Akop be “certified by a
Licensed Health Care Practitioner” as either suffering from
“Severe Cognitive Impairment” or “being unable to perform,
without Substantial Assistance from another individual, at
least two out of the six Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for
an expected period of at least 90 days due to a loss of
functional capacity.” These six ADLs involved specified
abilities related to “Bathing,” “Continence,” “Dressing,”
“Eating,” “Toileting,” and “Transferring.”
    In December 2018, Akop filed a claim for benefits under
the rider, alleging that he had torn his “left rotator cuff” and
suffered from “spinal arthritis.” The following month, a
nurse conducted an “onsite assessment” of Akop at his home
in order “to determine whether Akop was eligible to receive
benefits under the [r]ider.” During that assessment, at which
Anahit was present, Defendants represented that “Akop was
unable to perform four of the six ADLs defined in the
[r]ider” and that he had hired a caregiver, Serob Pzdikyan,
who provided him “with 2–5 hours of care in the home each
day.” Additionally, at the assessment, Akop “purported to
walk with an impaired gait and to require . . . a walker for
ambulation at all times.” Anahit also provided written
confirmation to Transamerica that “Akop was unable to
perform specific ADLs and that he hired Mr. Pzdikyan as his
caregiver.” In light of the information provided by
Defendants, Transamerica approved the claim and began
paying Akop benefits.
    Over the next several months, Transamerica conducted
surveillance of Akop in order to determine whether the
representations made in support of the claim for benefits
6         TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

were accurate. The surveillance allegedly revealed that
Pzdikyan never visited Akop’s home, in spite of the fact that
“[o]n each date of surveillance, Akop represented to
Transamerica in signed and certified Proof of Loss
statements that he received between three and eight hours of
care services from Mr. Pzdikyan in the home.” The
surveillance also assertedly revealed that Akop operated “in
a highly independent and functional manner, with no
apparent limitations at all.” Specifically, Transamerica’s
operative complaint alleged that Akop “was seen walking his
dog, reaching and bending, lifting objects with both hands,
driving a car, shopping for groceries and other items, [and]
walking without a limp or any assistive device (such as the
walker he claimed to need and use).”
    Based on this initial surveillance, Transamerica invoked
its rights under the rider to require Akop to submit to an
independent medical evaluation. The doctor who performed
the evaluation, Dr. Molinar, examined Akop in April 2019.
Although Dr. Molinar opined that Akop’s claimed pain
symptoms were “far greater than what one would expect
from reading his MRI,” Dr. Molinar also concluded,
“[b]ased in large part on Akop’s subjective representations,”
that Akop required substantial assistance to perform two
ADLs. Because that determination was sufficient to support
Akop’s continuing claimed eligibility for long-term care
benefits, Transamerica continued paying benefits to Akop.
    Both before and after this medical examination,
Transamerica continued its surveillance of Akop, and in July
2019, Transamerica also “assigned an investigator to Mr.
Pzdikyan on the same dates and during the same time periods
when another investigator was performing surveillance on
Akop.” This surveillance allegedly confirmed that Pzdikyan
“did not provide care to Akop on the dates represented by
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN          7

Akop to Transamerica.” Transamerica’s further surveillance
also purportedly showed that Akop was continuing to engage
in activities that were inconsistent with his claimed level of
impairment.
    In August 2019, Defendants “jointly signed and
submitted a letter to Transamerica, the effect of which was
for Anahit to take assignment of Akop’s benefit payments
under the [r]ider.” This meant that all future benefit
payments stemming from Akop’s purported medical care
would be sent directly to Anahit instead. The asserted basis
for the assignment was that Anahit was “‘the one who pays
the care giver’ for Akop’s care.” Transamerica alleged that,
because Anahit had claimed to work in the medical field for
several years and was “resid[ing] in the same house as
Akop” at all relevant times, Anahit was “aware that Mr.
Pzdikyan did not provide care as represented to
Transamerica” and that Anahit was not in fact paying
Pzdikyan for such services.
    Transamerica subsequently provided portions of its
video surveillance of Akop to Dr. Molinar, and it asked him
to reevaluate his conclusions in light of that additional
evidence. Stating that the video evidence changed his
opinion, Dr. Molinar in January 2020 provided an addendum
to his prior report in which he concluded that it was now
“obvious” that Akop “was markedly exaggerating his
disability and can perform all of [the listed ADLs] without
difficulty despite his claims that he could not.” Based on Dr.
Molinar’s addendum, Transamerica halted payments on the
policy and denied Akop’s claim. At the time that it
terminated payments to Defendants, Transamerica had paid
$109,381.71 in benefits.
8         TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

                              B
    In May 2020, Transamerica filed this suit against
Defendants, alleging that they had obtained insurance
benefits through fraud. Specifically, Transamerica asserted
monetary claims based on fraud, civil theft, civil conspiracy,
and restitution. Transamerica also sought a declaration that,
in light of the fraudulent conduct, the policy was void.
Transamerica sought compensatory and punitive damages,
statutory treble damages, attorney’s fees, declaratory relief,
and restitution. Defendants denied the core allegations, and
they counterclaimed for breach of the insurance contract and
for tortious bad faith denial of coverage.
    In January 2021, Transamerica separately served each
Defendant with interrogatories and requests for the
production of documents. Dissatisfied with Defendants’
responses, Transamerica sent a letter detailing the perceived
deficiencies and requesting that a “meet and confer” session
be scheduled. During the ensuing telephonic meet-and-
confer sessions in late April 2021, counsel for Defendants
agreed to provide certain supplemental responses and to
produce specified categories of documents. On May 7,
2021, counsel for Transamerica sent a letter to Defendants’
counsel summarizing the agreed-upon supplemental
discovery that would be provided by Defendants.
     After Defendants’ counsel failed to produce any
supplemental responses despite Transamerica’s repeated
follow-up inquiries, Transamerica initiated the process for
filing a motion to compel. Under the local civil rules of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
discovery motions must be presented in the form of a “joint
stipulation” that contains, “in one document signed by both
counsel,” the parties’ respective positions concerning each
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN          9

separate discovery issue that remains in dispute after the
completion of the meet-and-confer process. C.D. CAL.
LOCAL CIV. R. 37-2.1. The first step in preparing such a joint
stipulation is for the moving party to serve on opposing
counsel “the moving party’s portion of the stipulation,
together with all declarations and exhibits to be offered in
support of the moving party’s position.” See C.D. CAL.
LOCAL CIV. R. 37-2.2. Transamerica did so, as to each
Defendant, on May 28, 2021. Under the local rules, the
opposing party’s portion of such a joint stipulation must be
served within seven days, and it is then the responsibility of
the moving party’s counsel to prepare the final stipulation
for counsel’s respective signatures and for subsequent filing.
See id. Defendants’ counsel, however, did not transmit
Defendants’ portions of the stipulations within the requisite
seven days. Instead, on June 2, 2021, Defendants’ counsel
sent an email attaching certain supplemental discovery
materials. The email stated that counsel was “racing through
finalizing some of these supplementals” and “attaching
whatever I can when I receive,” and the email concluded,
“More to come soon.”
    After Defendants’ counsel continued to fail to provide
Defendants’ portions of the joint stipulations concerning
Transamerica’s     discovery      motions,     counsel   for
Transamerica on August 11, 2021 sent a further request for
Defendants’ counsel to do so by close of business the next
day. When Defendants’ counsel still failed to produce
Defendants’ portions of the joint stipulations, Transamerica
on August 13, 2021 filed its portions of the respective
documents as to each Defendant, together with the
declaration required by the local rules explaining that
opposing counsel had “failed to provide the opposing party’s
portion of the joint stipulation in a timely manner.” C.D.
10        TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

CAL. LOCAL CIV. R. 37-2.4. The motions were noticed to be
heard on September 14, 2021. See C.D. CAL. LOCAL CIV. R.
6-1, 37-2.4, 37-3. Under the local rules, Defendants’ last
opportunity to file a response to the motions was August 24,
2021. See C.D. CAL. LOCAL CIV. R. 7-9, 37-2.4. Defendants
failed to provide any response by that date.
    On September 1, 2021, the magistrate judge vacated the
hearing date on the motions and issued an order to show
cause (“OSC”) directing Defendants to show cause by
September 10 why the motions should not be granted. The
court’s order specifically “admonishe[d] both Defendants
that, this being a Court order, failure to comply with it brings
into play the full panoply of sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)–(vii).”
    Defendants filed their response to the OSC on September
13, three days late. Counsel for Defendants sought to justify
that late response by asserting that an “unknown” error in his
“computer system/google calendar” resulted in him missing
the calendared deadline. As to the underlying discovery
dispute, Defendants argued that sanctions should not be
imposed because they had provided supplemental discovery
responses in June 2021; Transamerica assertedly already had
“all information and documents available” to Defendants;
and Defendants’ “responses and objections were
substantially justified.” The response did not explain why
Defendants’ sections of the joint stipulations had not been
provided, nor did it provide, on an issue-by-issue basis,
Defendants’ substantive responses to the particular
discovery issues raised by Transamerica’s motions. In its
subsequent response to Defendants’ filing, Transamerica
argued that Defendants had waived their objections to
discovery; that Transamerica’s motions to compel should be
granted; and that monetary sanctions should be imposed.
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN         11

    On September 21, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an
order discharging the September 1 OSC. The court accepted
Defendants’ counsel’s explanation about a calendaring-
system error because it was made under oath and was not
challenged by Transamerica. Although that calendaring-
error explanation only addressed why Defendants “missed
the deadline to file a response to the Order to Show Cause,”
the court generously construed that explanation as also
providing an excuse for why Defendants “did not file their
portion of the Joint Stipulation.” However, the court held
that the “form of the opposition” to the discovery motions in
Defendants’ current filing was “deficient,” because it
consisted of a “running narrative” that was “unconnected to
specific discovery requests.” Accordingly, the court ordered
Defendants to provide Transamerica, within 10 days,
Defendants’ portions of the joint stipulations. The court also
ordered the parties “to meet and confer” within seven days
after Defendants supplied those portions, in order “to reduce
or eliminate issues for the Court to resolve.” Within seven
days after that meet-and-confer session, the parties were to
“file supplemental memoranda” concerning the status of the
discovery disputes.
     In response to this order, Defendants provided their
portions of the two joint stipulations, which were then filed
with the court on October 8, 2021. On October 15,
Transamerica filed its respective supplemental memoranda
in support of both motions. Defendants, however, did not
file any supplemental memoranda.
   On October 20, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an
order calling for further briefing. Noting that there were “an
unusually large number of discovery disputes” at issue in
each of the two motions, the court stated that such a large
number of disputed issues “usually means that the parties did
12          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

not fulfill their mandatory duty . . . to confer in good faith to
reduce or eliminate disputes that the Court must resolve.”
The court also remarked that some of the discovery issues
appeared to have already been resolved to the extent
possible. Accordingly, the court ordered another round of
focused briefing to identify the remaining discovery
disputes. The court instructed Transamerica by October 29
to “advise Defendants of what remains in dispute and what
should be done to make responses complete,” and it ordered
Defendants thereafter to “serve supplemental responses” by
November 5. The court also ordered the parties to meet and
confer by November 12 with respect to any discovery
requests still in dispute, and then to file a joint status report
by November 19.
    In an email sent to Defendants on October 28,
Transamerica timely identified both the outstanding
discovery issues that remained in dispute and what it
believed Defendants needed to do to complete their
discovery responses. At that point, Defendants were
obligated under the October 20 order to serve their
supplemental discovery responses by November 5 and
thereafter to meet and confer with Transamerica by
November 12. Defendants did neither. 2 Transamerica
reached out to Defendants’ counsel, both by email and by

2
  At oral argument, counsel for Defendants repeatedly insisted that he
had complied with the court’s order to provide supplemental responses
and to meet and confer, but he was unable to provide any record support
for this assertion. From our review of the record, it appears that
Defendants’ counsel was referring to a supplemental production
provided in an October 15, 2021 email that followed an earlier meet-and-
confer session. Neither that October 15 production, nor that earlier
session, could possibly be thought to have complied with the subsequent
obligations set forth in the court’s October 20, 2021 order.
           TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN           13

phone, noting Defendants’ omissions and reminding counsel
of the joint status report due on November 19. Finally, at
7:18 PM on November 18, Defendants’ counsel emailed
Transamerica’s counsel as follows: “I received your email.
We are in the middle of an FSC [Final Status Conference]
today, and all that goes with it, but I will be dealing with this
as soon as possible.” However, nothing was forthcoming
from Defendants before the November 19 deadline.
Consequently, on November 19, Transamerica’s counsel
filed a declaration explaining that Transamerica had
complied with the court’s October 20 order, but that
Defendants had not provided their supplemental responses,
had not met and conferred, and had not supplied their portion
of the required joint status report.
    On November 22, 2021, the magistrate judge issued an
order addressing both (1) Defendants’ failure to comply with
the October 20 order and (2) the substance of the discovery
disputes. The court held that “Defendants’ conduct in
violating three separate provisions of this Court’s October
20, 2021 Order is inexcusable.” Invoking its authority under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and (b), the court
ordered Defendants, by November 30, to provide the five
specific categories of additional discovery and supplemental
responses that had been set forth in Transamerica’s October
28, 2021 email. The court explained that, “[b]y violating this
Court’s Order, Defendants lost the right to dispute any of the
above requests that they had not already agreed to produce.”
Importantly, the order also provided that “[f]ailure to comply
with this Order by November 30, 2021 will result in a
recommendation to the District Court for default judgment
pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi).” Finally, the court further
ordered Defendants to show cause “by November 30, 2021
why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions on
14        TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

Defendants for their multiple violations of this Court’s Order
of October 20, 2021.”
    Defendants failed to comply with either aspect of this
order by the November 30, 2021 deadline. Accordingly, on
December 1, Transamerica filed a notice informing the court
that (1) Defendants “did not produce the documents and
information set forth in the Court’s [November 22] Order by
November 30, 2021” and that “no additional materials of any
nature ha[d] been provided”; (2) Defendants “ha[d] not
contacted [Transamerica] to advise why no production
occurred or to propose a solution”; and (3) “Defendants did
not respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause by
November 30, 2021.” Accordingly, Transamerica requested
that the magistrate judge recommend to the district judge
that a default judgment be entered.
    On December 7, 2021, having still received no filing of
any kind from Defendants, the magistrate judge issued an
order concluding that Defendants had violated, in multiple
respects, the court’s October 20 and November 22 orders.
Noting that the November 22 order had specifically warned
that Defendants’ failure to comply “would result in a
recommendation to the District Court for default judgment
pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi),” the court ordered
Transamerica, by December 20, “to prepare and present a
proposed Report and Recommendation to the District Court”
concerning the entry of default judgment against
Defendants.
    Two days later, counsel for Defendants filed a “Request
for Reconsideration of Termination Sanctions.” The first
two and a half pages of that document consisted of portions
of a procedural summary that were largely identical to
material that had been included in Defendants’ September
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN        15

13 response to the first OSC. In the remaining two pages of
the document, Defendants defended their discovery efforts,
arguing that they had produced what they could and that
additional materials either could not be obtained or had
properly been objected to. As to why Defendants had not
responded to the November 22 order, Defendants’ counsel
stated only that he “was then heavily engaged in preparation
for trial on another matter, including preparation for an FSC
on November 18, 2021 and a trial then scheduled to start on
November 29, 2021, in which I was served with 12 motions
in limine and the court there, entered various scheduling
orders that required my full attention.”
    Addressing the subject of sanctions, Defendants argued
as follows:

           Terminating sanctions should not be
       imposed because Defendants have provided
       all documents within their possession,
       custody or control and the requested
       information, to which proper objections were
       interposed does not justify terminating
       sanctions when Defendants have provided
       more than sufficient information, documents
       available to them in both their original
       responses and the supplemental responses,
       and additional supplemental responses.
       Plaintiff has all information from
       defendant/counterclaimants that they have
       available.    To impose such proposed
16        TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

       terminating sanctions is not justified under
       these circumstances.

    On December 20, 2021, Transamerica timely filed its
proposed Report and Recommendation regarding the entry
of a default judgment against Defendants. Two days later,
the magistrate judge adopted that report as his own, except
that he declined to include Transamerica’s proposed award
of punitive damages. On January 5, 2022, Defendants timely
filed their objections to the Report and Recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2).
Transamerica filed a timely response to those objections.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). On January 24, 2022, the
district judge issued an order stating that he had reviewed the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, considered
Defendants’ objections de novo, and adopted the Report and
Recommendation in full. The district court entered default
judgment against Defendants and dismissed all of their
counterclaims with prejudice. The judgment awarded, inter
alia, compensatory damages of $109,381.71; additional
statutory treble damages of $218,763.42 under California’s
civil theft statute, see CAL. PENAL CODE § 496(c); and
attorney’s fees of $166,394.50 under that same statute.
                              II
    As set forth above, the district court imposed distinct
sanctions on Defendants in two separate orders. First, in its
November 22, 2021 order, the court held that, by failing to
comply in multiple respects with the court’s October 20,
2021 order, Defendants “lost the right” to object to the five
specific categories of discovery that Defendants were
directed to produce in that order, including “Anahit’s tax
returns” for the relevant years and “Defendants’ passwords
for their social media accounts.” Second, the district court
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN         17

held, in its January 24, 2022 order, that Defendants’ multiple
violations of the court’s orders merited entry of a default
judgment. Defendants have failed to provide any basis for
setting aside these orders.
                              A
    In their opening brief, Defendants argue at length that
they were “entitled to stand on their objections” to
Transamerica’s discovery requests concerning Anahit’s tax
returns and Defendants’ social-media-account passwords,
and that the district court’s order to produce these materials
was an abuse of discretion. These arguments are essentially
irrelevant, because they overlook the basis for the district
court’s November 22, 2021 order to produce these items.
That order did not purport to resolve the substantive validity
of Defendants’ objections to these discovery requests.
Instead, that order found that, because Defendants had
“inexcusabl[y]” failed to comply in multiple respects with
the district court’s earlier October 20, 2021 order,
Defendants’ objections to the five specified categories of
discovery would be deemed, as a sanction under Rule 37, to
be forfeited.       Although Defendants’ opening brief
acknowledges the latter ruling in its statement of facts, the
argument section of the brief does not present, much less
adequately develop, any argument that the district court
abused its sanctions authority under Rule 37 in deeming
Defendants’ objections to these items of discovery to be
forfeited. By failing to present any sufficient argument in
their opening brief as to why the district court’s stated
grounds for that decision were erroneous, Defendants have
forfeited any challenge to that order on appeal. See Brown
v. City of Los Angeles, 521 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2008).
We therefore uphold the district court’s November 22, 2021
18        TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

order requiring production of the specified items of
discovery.
                              B
    Defendants separately challenge the district court’s
ultimate decision to enter a default judgment as a sanction
for Defendants’ violations of court orders. Our review of
that order is only for abuse of discretion, Conn. Gen. Life
Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096
(9th Cir. 2007), and we find none.
   “We have identified five factors that a district court must
consider before dismissing a case or declaring a default:

       ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious
       resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to
       manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to
       the [other party]; (4) the public policy
       favoring the disposition of cases on their
       merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
       sanctions.’”

Adriana Int’l Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th
Cir. 1990) (quoting Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d
128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (alteration made, without brackets,
by Adriana Int’l)). Although the district court’s order here
did not expressly recite and individually discuss each of
these “Malone factors,” that “is not required.” Allen v. Bayer
Corp. (In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab.
Litig.), 460 F.3d 1217, 1226, 1236 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted). It suffices if the district court’s analysis,
considered in the context of the record as a whole, permits
us “independently to determine if the district court has
abused its discretion” in light of these factors. Id. at 1226
           TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN             19

(citation omitted); see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins., 482 F.3d at
1096 (holding that the district court’s “terse order,” which
“did not engage in extended discussion,” was sufficient
because “the record makes application of all the factors so
clear that no extended discussion was needed”).
    The first two Malone factors are typically considered
together, and because they relate to docket-management
issues that the district court “is in the best position” to assess,
we give particular deference to the district court’s judgment
concerning them. Allen, 460 F.3d at 1227, 1236 (citation
omitted). Here, the district court’s order entering a default
judgment set forth at length the extent to which the discovery
proceedings had been protracted by Defendants’ failure to
comply with the October 20, 2021 and November 22, 2021
orders. On this record, the first two Malone factors therefore
plainly favored entry of a default judgment. See Adriana
Int’l, 913 F.2d at 1412 (noting that, in applying the five
Malone factors, the general rule is that, in a case involving
violations of court orders, “the first two factors support
sanctions”).
     The third Malone factor—the “risk of prejudice” to the
other party—examines the extent to which the recalcitrant
parties’ conduct creates a risk of either “impair[ing] the
[opposing party’s] ability to go to trial” or “interfer[ing] with
the rightful decision of the case.” Allen, 460 F.3d at 1227
(citation omitted). We have generally found that failure to
comply with an order to produce specific discovery materials
creates a sufficient risk of prejudice to satisfy this factor. See
id.; see also Adriana Int’l, 913 F.2d at 1412. Defendants
nonetheless assert that the particular discovery materials at
issue—such as Anahit’s tax returns and Defendants’ social-
media-account passwords—are of such trivial significance
to the case that any risk of prejudice here was essentially
20        TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

non-existent. We reject this contention. Defendants’ social
media accounts could reasonably be thought to contain
relevant information concerning Akop’s day-to-day
activities that would bear upon whether he was as impaired
as he claimed, and Anahit’s tax returns could reasonably be
thought to provide a more complete insight into her possible
financial motives for participating in a fraudulent scheme to
collect benefits. Defendants’ defiance of the district court’s
explicit order to produce this information therefore falls well
within the general rule that “[f]ailing to produce documents
as ordered is considered sufficient prejudice.” Allen, 460
F.3d at 1227. The third factor thus favors a default
judgment.
    At a general level, the “public policy favoring
disposition of cases on their merits”—the fourth Malone
factor—always weighs against a default judgment, and often
“strongly” so. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393,
399 (9th Cir. 1998). However, this factor is not dispositive
and a default judgment will still be warranted “where at least
four factors support [a default judgment] or where at least
three factors ‘strongly’ support” such a judgment. Id.
(citations omitted). Moreover, we expressly recognized in
Allen that the fourth Malone factor “‘lends little support’ to
a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward
disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes
progress in that direction.” 460 F.3d at 1228 (citation
omitted). Under Allen, this factor weighs against a default
judgment, but it provides only “little support” for that
conclusion. Id.
   The last remaining Malone factor concerns the
“availability of less drastic sanctions.” Malone, 833 F.2d at
130 (citation omitted). We have “identified” three additional
considerations that we use “to assess whether a district court
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN         21

had adequately considered less drastic sanctions:
(1) whether the district court ‘explicitly discussed the
alternative of lesser sanctions and explained why it would be
inappropriate,’ (2) whether the district court had
‘implemented lesser sanctions before ordering [entry of a
default judgment]’, and (3) whether the district court had
‘warned the offending party of the possibility [of a default
judgment].’” Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 687 F.3d 1162,
1170 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Malone, 833
F.2d at 132. Each of these three considerations confirms that
the fifth Malone factor favors a default judgment here.
     As our earlier factual summary makes clear, the district
court applied a measured and gradational approach in
responding to Defendants’ non-compliance with the court’s
orders and the local rules. After the district court issued an
initial OSC concerning Defendants’ failure to provide their
portions of the joint stipulations, Defendants filed their
response to that OSC three days late. Nonetheless, the
district court discharged that OSC, adopting the overly
generous view that Defendants’ explanation for the late
filing of the response to the OSC also served to explain why
their portions of the joint stipulation had not been provided.
See supra at 11. After concluding that the parties’ papers
did not adequately distill the relevant discovery issues that
needed court resolution, the district court ordered a further
round of briefing, but Defendants failed to perform any of
the tasks assigned to them under that order: they did not
provide the required supplemental responses; they did not
meet and confer with Transamerica concerning the
outstanding issues; and they did not provide their portion of
the joint status report. Confronted with this further lack of
compliance, the district court again took a measured
approach. It deemed the relevant discovery objections to
22        TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

have been waived; it ordered that specified discovery be
provided by November 30, 2021; it issued a further OSC,
this time asking whether monetary sanctions should be
imposed; and it warned that non-compliance could result in
a default judgment. Only after Defendants—amazingly—
failed to comply with any aspect of that further order did the
district court request a proposed report concerning entry of
default judgment.
     The record thus amply confirms that the district court
“implemented lesser sanctions before ordering” a default
judgment and that it also “warned the offending party of the
possibility” of such a judgment if the non-compliance
continued. Hester, 687 F.3d at 1170 (citation omitted).
Although the final report and recommendation did not
“explicitly discuss[] the alternative of lesser sanctions and
explain[] why it would be inappropriate,” id. (citation
omitted), we have long held that “explicit discussion of
alternatives is unnecessary if the district court actually tries
alternatives before employing the ultimate sanction” of
dismissal or a default judgment, Malone, 833 F.2d at 132.
Here, the magistrate judge’s report recounted the court’s
prior application of lesser sanctions and the continuing non-
compliance that followed, and it then expressly concluded
that, on this record, the sanction of a default judgment was
warranted. Accordingly, all three of the considerations for
applying the fifth Malone factor are satisfied here, and that
fifth factor therefore favors a default judgment. See Adriana
Int’l, 913 F.2d at 1413; Malone, 833 F.2d at 132.
    Because four of the five factors supported entry of a
default judgment, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in entering such a judgment in favor of
Transamerica. Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399. And because
Defendants’ opening brief does not challenge the scope of
          TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN           23

the relief that the district court awarded upon entry of
default, any such objections have been forfeited. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
                              III
     Having painstakingly recounted, in fulsome detail, the
relevant facts and the applicable law concerning Defendants’
challenges to the district court’s orders in this case, we think
it is abundantly clear that “the result is obvious” and “the
appellant[s’] arguments are wholly without merit.” Adriana
Int’l, 913 F.2d at 1417. In a word, this appeal is objectively
“frivolous.” Id.
    Moreover, at oral argument for this appeal, Defendants’
counsel repeatedly minimized, if not misrepresented, his
lack of compliance with the district court’s orders in this
case. For example, at one point during argument, counsel
asserted that, “[i]n terms of our compliance with the court’s
orders, at no point did we ignore or flout our responsibility
to respond to discovery.” Moreover, as noted earlier,
Defendants’ counsel apparently relied on pre-October 20,
2021 conduct in wrongly claiming that he had taken steps to
comply with the district court’s later October 20, 2021 order.
See supra note 2. Counsel also inaccurately claimed that
“[t]he one item that I missed was the joint statement to the
court where I was in the middle of trial—at FSC and trial.”
As we have recounted, the record flatly belies this claim that
the failure to supply Defendants’ portion of the joint status
report due on November 19 was the “one item that
[Defendants’ counsel] missed” in terms of complying with
the district court’s orders. It may well be that, when it comes
to evaluating these multiple misstatements, this case may
ultimately call for the application of what has been called
24        TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. CO. V. ARUTYUNYAN

“Hanlon’s Razor”: “Never attribute to malice that which is
adequately explained by stupidity.” See Hanlon’s Razor,
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon’s_razor.
But even if these comments were not deliberate
misstatements, it seems clear that they were at least made to
this court with reckless disregard for their accuracy.
    In view of the frivolous nature of this appeal and the
multiple misstatements made by counsel at oral argument,
we have ordered Defendants and their counsel, by separate
order filed contemporaneously herewith, to show cause why
this court should not impose sanctions against them under
28 U.S.C. § 1912, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38, and/or the inherent authority of this
court, see Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43–51
(1991). See generally McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d
116, 118–19 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants’ counsel is
likewise ordered to show cause why this court should not
refer this matter to the State Bar of California.
   AFFIRMED; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS
ISSUED BY SEPARATE ORDER.