Unpublished Disposition, 930 F.2d 31 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Larry Zuchowski appeals pro se the district court's denial of his post-judgment motion for sanctions for alleged discovery abuses by CBS, Inc. We review for an abuse of discretion, Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505, 515 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1985), and we affirm.

On June 23, 1988, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of CBS in this wrongful termination action. On February 26, 1990, after a voluntary dismissal of his appeal from the grant of summary judgment, Zuchowski filed a motion for sanctions for alleged discovery abuses. In his motion, Zuchowski sought sanctions for (1) CBS's termination of the deposition of its in-house counsel, David Pill, and (2) Pill's allegedly fraudulent responses to various questions. Pill and his attorney ended the deposition after approximately two hours, on the ground that all of the areas of inquiry pursued by Zuchowski fell within either the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product privilege. Zuchowski, who at that time was represented by counsel, did not file a motion to compel discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).

The district court properly denied Zuchowski's request for sanctions. First, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) provides for sanctions only where the deponent fails to appear for a properly noticed deposition. Accordingly, Rule 37(d) is not applicable here because it is undisputed that Pill appeared for his deposition.¹  See Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1983). Second, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 does not provide for sanctions for the failure to answer questions at a deposition. Sanctions are available under Rule 11 only where an attorney signs a pleading, motion, or other paper in violation of the standards set forth in the rule. See United Energy Owners Comm. v. United States Energy Management Sys., 837 F.2d 356, 364-65 (9th Cir. 1988). Similarly, sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) are available only where an attorney signs a discovery request, response, or objection in violation of the standards set forth in the rule. Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is not applicable here because there is no evidence that CBS conducted any proceeding in bad faith or for the purpose of delay or increasing costs. See United States v. Associated Convalescent Enter., 766 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1985).² 

CBS requests sanctions against Zuchowski for bringing this appeal. This court has discretion to impose damages, even against pro se litigants, as a sanction for bringing a frivolous appeal. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 1988); 28 U.S.C. § 1912; Fed. R. App. P. 38. An appeal is frivolous if the results are obvious, or the arguments of error are wholly without merit. Wilcox, 848 F.2d at 1009 (citation omitted). Zuchowski's claims are wholly without merit. Accordingly, we impose sanctions in the amount of $500 and double costs against Zuchowski.

AFFIRMED.