Ronald Arnold v. Sam's Club
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Ronald S. Arnold appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict for defendant Sam’s Club in his negligence action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s evi-dentiary rulings. McEuin v. Crown Equip. Corp., 328 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding from evidence various items that Arnold sought to admit because the evidence was either not authenticated or irrelevant, or both. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 901.
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding reports of other slip-and-fall incidents at Sam’s Club because the reports were not authenticated, see Fed. R. Evid. 901, and Arnold failed to establish that all of the incidents occurred under substantially similar circumstances, see Daniel v. Coleman Co. Inc., 599 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that a “showing of substantial similarity is required when a plaintiff attempts to introduce evidence of other accidents as direct proof of negligence” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).