Bailey Credo Witt v. Snohomish County Washington;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAILEY CREDO WITT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
WASHINGTON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35129
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00566-BAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Brian A. Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 14, 2013***
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Bailey Credo Witt appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and illegal search
FILED
MAY 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-35129 2
and seizure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
grant of summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision whether to
exclude evidence as a discovery sanction, Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor
Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose discovery
sanctions on defendants, as any alleged failure to disclose under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a) or (e) was harmless. See Yeti by Molly Ltd., 259 F.3at 1105-06 (explaining
that Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 requires the exclusion of evidence unless the failure to
disclose was substantially justified or is harmless). Witt’s contention that the
failure to exclude the challenged evidence violated his due process rights is
unavailing, as the alleged discovery violations had no bearing on Witt’s ability to
provide the district court with evidence within his personal knowledge to oppose
summary judgment.
Witt’s contention that the district court erred by not granting his request for
oral argument is unpersuasive, as the district court was not required to do so under
the local rules and, in any event, there is no showing of prejudice. See Houston v.
Bryan, 725 F.2d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1984).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --