NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 3 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO, PhD, No. 18-35217
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00129-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
IDAHOAN FOODS, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 31, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo, PhD, appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his employment action alleging federal and state law claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Wong v. Regents of University of California, 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2005). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Kohler v. Bed
Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
Kamdem-Ouaffo argues the district court abused its discretion by refusing to
consider the screenshots of his spam e-mail folder. We disagree. The screenshot
references are undated and do not refer to any particular position for which he says
he applied. Moreover, the screenshots do not mention Idahoan as the company to
which he claims they refer, and they are not accompanied by the applications to
which he alleges they respond.
Kamdem-Ouaffo further argues that the district court abused its discretion
by considering evidence concerning defendant’s applicant tracking system. We
disagree. Information concerning this system was properly disclosed by defendant
during discovery, and Kamdem-Ouaffo did not bring a motion to compel any
additional disclosure. See Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 1997)
(explaining that the plaintiff waived their challenge to defendant’s discovery
objection by failing to bring a motion to compel); see also Lane v. Dep’t of
Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court has wide latitude in
controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be overturned in absence of a clear
abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2 18-35217
Kamdem-Ouaffo’s request to strike portions of Dubreuil’s declaration, set
forth in his opening brief, is denied.
This court has received from the district court complete copies of the
exhibits attached to Kamdem-Ouaffo’s complaint and summary judgment
opposition. The clerk shall file these exhibits, submitted at Docket Entry No. 28.
Kamdem-Ouaffo’s motion to file an oversized brief (Docket Entry No. 21) is
granted in part. The clerk shall file Kamdem-Ouaffo’s reply brief submitted at
Docket Entry No. 22. The remainder of this motion, and all other pending
motions, are denied.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-35217