FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FEB 12 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JON MUSIAL, a single man, No. 18-16867

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01999-JJT v.

MEMORANDUM* TELESTEPS, INC., a New York corporation; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2020

Phoenix, Arizona Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Following a jury verdict for Defendants, Plaintiff Jon Musial timely appeals. He seeks a new trial, challenging six evidentiary rulings. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The district court’s disputed evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion. Although another court could have ruled differently, the district court’s rulings were not "illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record." United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Furthermore, any potential error in the district court’s rulings did not prejudice Plaintiff to the degree necessary to mandate reversal or a new trial. See Harper, 533 F.3d at 1030 (holding that reversal on account of an evidentiary ruling requires a conclusion that, "more probably than not, the lower court’s error tainted the verdict" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2