Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-14679/USCOURTS-ca11-14-14679-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joanne Pearson
Appellant
Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14679

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-01846-VEH

JOANNE PEARSON,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,

versus

TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(June 12, 2015)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and SENTELLE,

* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

 * Honorable David Bryan Sentelle, United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia, 

sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 14-14679 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

Having studied the briefs and the pertinent parts of the record, and after 

hearing oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not err in entering 

summary judgment against the plaintiff in this case. See, e.g., Miller’s Ale House, 

Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC, 702 F.3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir. 2012) 

(“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find 

for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”) (quotation marks 

omitted); Garczynski v. Bradshaw, 573 F.3d 1158, 1165 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A 

‘mere scintilla’ of evidence is insufficient; the non-moving party must produce 

substantial evidence in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”); Galvez 

v. Bruce, 552 F.3d 1238, 1240 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56, the court may disregard an offer of evidence that is too incredible to 

be believed.”) (quotation marks omitted); see also Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm 

Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (“An issue of fact is ‘genuine’ if the 

record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving 

party.”).1

 1 The appellant contends that it was an abuse of discretion to deny her discovery motion on 

attorney–client privilege grounds. The district court, however, based its discovery ruling on two 

independent grounds. The other ground was the work product privilege, which appellant did not 

challenge in her brief. She has, therefore, abandoned any contention that the district court 

erroneously applied the work product privilege. Because she has “fail[ed] to challenge properly 

on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its” discovery ruling, “it follows 

that the [ruling] is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 

(11th Cir. 2014).

USCA11 Case: 14-14679 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

AFFIRMED.2

 2 The appellee’s motion to strike certain portions of the appellant’s reply brief is DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 14-14679 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 3 of 3