
    Barry KELLY; Molly Kelly, Plaintiffs, and Gilbert L. Purcell, Counsel for Plaintiffs, Appellant, v. CRANE CO., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-16457
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed August 21, 2017
    
      Richard M. Grant, Brayton Purcell LLP, Novato, CA, for Appellant
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WATTERS, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Susan P. Watters, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Attorney Gilbert Purcell appeals the district court’s order imposing sanctions against him for conduct demonstrating bad faith. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

The district court correctly observed that: (1) the question whether chemotherapy exacerbated Barry Kelly’s pre-existing kidney condition was contested at trial; (2) Purcell explicitly told the court that Dr. ' Horn would not testify that Kelly’s “kidney problems were caused or exacerbated by the chemo” and conceded that such issue “wasn’t evaluated] in [Horn’s] Rule 26 report”; and (3) Purcell then intentionally attempted to have Dr. Horn testify on this issue at trial.

The district court did not clearly err in determining that such conduct demonstrated that Purcell acted in bad faith by attempting to “sneak” in Dr. Horn’s testimony. See, e.g., Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 961, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court finding that attorney acted in bad faith reviewed for clear error); Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2000) (same); see also Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) ( [Bjad faith ,.. includes a broad range of willful improper conduct.”),

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