FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY TAYLOR, No. 09-16766
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01984-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010 **
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Horizon Distributors, Inc. (“Horizon”) presented evidence showing a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to rescind its conditional offer
*
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).
09-16766
of employment to Billy Taylor (“Taylor”), who failed to present evidence creating
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not this reason was pretextual. See
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002)
(circumstantial evidence of pretext must be both specific and substantial); see also
Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270-71 (9th Cir. 1996) (where
same actor who offers plaintiff employment terminates it within a short time span
“a strong inference arises that there was no discriminatory motive”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Taylor’s motion for
reconsideration because he failed to present a showing of “manifest error or a
showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the
district court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” D. Ariz. Civ. R.
7.2(g)(1).
The district court permitted Taylor extensive discovery and did not abuse its
discretion by denying his requests for further discovery of marginal relevance. See
Cornwell v. Electra Central Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 2006)
(“District courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery and their rulings will
not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citations, internal
quotation marks and brackets omitted); Maljack Productions, Inc. v. GoodTimes
Home Video Corp., 81 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 1996) (no abuse of discretion to
2 09-16766
deny discovery regarding facts that, even if established, would not preclude
summary judgment, nor to deny further discovery that party believed may exist).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Taylor’s motions
for sanctions. See Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 819
(9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Taylor’s surreply.
See S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002) (district courts
have inherent power to control their dockets, and their decisions to that end are
reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
AFFIRMED.
3 09-16766