FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARC DAGUPION, No. 12-15771
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00120-SOM-
KSC
v.
NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE CO., a MEMORANDUM*
subsidiary of National City Bank, now
known as PNC Bank, National
Association; JOHN DOES, 1-10; JANE
ROES, 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS,
PARTNERSHIPS OR OTHER
ENTITIES, 1-10; LOAN NETWORK
LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Kevin S. Chang, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2013**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and FISHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Marc Dagupion appeals the orders of the district court awarding discovery
sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and denying his motion to
reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding sanctions or
denying Dagupion’s subsequent motion to reconsider. See SEC v. Platforms
Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010); Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co.
v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). The court
properly awarded “reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees” under Rule
37(b)(2)(C) following Dagupion’s failure to attend his court-ordered deposition on
November 2, 2011. Dagupion’s argument that he was excused from attending the
deposition based on the representations of opposing counsel is not supported by the
record.
The defendants provided a detailed account of their fees and costs resulting
from the failure to attend, and the court awarded a reasonable sum. In moving for
reconsideration, Dagupion did not present any newly discovered evidence, show
that the district court’s decision was clear error or manifestly unjust or demonstrate
an intervening change in controlling law. See Platforms Wireless, 617 F.3d at
1100.
AFFIRMED.
2