Bruce Remington v. John Mathson

MEMORANDUM

Bruce Remington appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging that his neighbors violated various federal environmental statutes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment, Ass’n to Protect Hammersley, Eld, & Totten Inlets v. Taylor Res., Inc., 299 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir.2002), 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 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Remington failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated various federal environmental laws. See Tucker ex rel. Tucker v. Interscope Records, Inc., 515 F.3d 1019 , 1032 n. 14 (9th Cir.2008) (nonmoving party must establish the existence of a genuine factual dispute on the basis of admissible evidence).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing discovery sanctions on Remington because Remington’s failure to comply with expert witness disclosures was neither substantially justified nor harmless. See Yeti…