FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 17 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 8- cv -0 12 12 -ACC- GJK MORTGAGE PAYMENT PROTECTION, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CYNOSURE FINANCIAL, INC., Defen da nt -Co un te r Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll an t Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee, VIRGINIA SURETY COMP ANY, INC., Defen da nt -Co un te r Cl ai m an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 10 , 20 12 )Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN andALARCON, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM: Inth is di ve rs ity

bre ach of c on tra ctact io n, Ap pe ll an t/ Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee, Cyno su re Fi na nc ia l, In c. (“ CFI” ), ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng pa rti al
su m m ary jud gm en t t o Ap pe ll ee/ Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t, Mo rtg ag e Paym en t Pr ot ect io n, In c. (“ MPP I”), an d i ts ord ers de nyin g C FI’s m ot io n t o c om pe l, s tri ki ng CFI’s
supp le m en ta l ex pe rt e co no m ic s re po rt, a ndqu as hi ng CFI’s tria l s ub po en as . MPPI
cro ss ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of CFI o n a ll of it s b reac h o f co nt ractcla im s an d i ts de ni al of M PPI’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. The fol lo win g i ss ue s ar e p res en te d fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w: 1. Whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g C FI’s reque stfordam ag es be cau se th e ev id en ce was to o s pe cu la ti ve . 2. Whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C FI’s m ot io n to co m pe l M PPI t o p ro du ce ev id en ce o f pr em iu m s g en erat edby an in su ran ce pr og ram refe rredto as t he New Genwo rth Pro gr am .

Honora ble Arthur L
. Alarc on, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circ uit, sitting by * designation. 23. Whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n s tri ki ng CFI’s

supp le m en ta l ex pe rt e co no m ic s re po rt. 4. Whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n qua sh in g C FI’s tr ia l
subp oe na s b y

whi ch CFI i ns tru ct edreco rd s cu st od ia ns to ap pe ar attri al an d c ert ify do cu m en ts , th atbo th MPPI an d C FI al read y po ss es se d, re fle ct in g t he pre m iu m s ge ne rat edby the New Genwo rth Pro gr am . 5. Oncro ss -ap pe al , whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o C FI o n t he un de rlyin g i ss ue of l iabi li ty w it h re gardto MPPI ’s bre ach of co nt ractcla im

an d C FI’s cl ai m

on co un t 1
. 6. Oncro ss -ap pe al , whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de nyin g M PPI’s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, o r inth e al te rn at iv e, m ot io n fo r en try of fin al jud gm en t. Thi s co urt re vi ews de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t. Am. Gen. Li

fe Ins . Co. v. S

ch oe ntha l Fa mil

y, LLC , 55 5 F .3d13 31 , 13 37 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9)
. Thi s co urt ap pl ie s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ardto th e d is tri ctco urt’s
or de rs de nyin g am ot io n t o c om pe l d is co ve ry , qu as hi ng a subp oe na , andde nyin g a
m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n. Se e Hol lo man v. Mai l-Well Co rp . , 44 3 F .3d83 2, 8 37 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (m ot io n t o c om pe l d is co ve ry ); Uni te d Sta tes v. To ka rs , 95 F.3d

315 20 , 15 37 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (m ot io n t o qua sh a subp oe na ); Flo ri da Ass ’n of

Reh ab . Faci li ti es , Inc . v. Fla . Dep’ t o f Hea lth a nd

Reha bi li ta ti ve S

er vs . , 22 5 F .3d 12 08 , 12 18 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n)
. Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , read in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , andha vi ng th e be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we co nc lu de th atth ere i s n o m eri t t o a ny of th e arg um en ts pre se nt edby the pa rti es in th e d ire ctap pe al or i n t he cro ss -ap pe al
. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of CFI o n a ll of i ts bre ach of c on tra ctcla im s an d we a ffi rm all of t he rem ai ni ng or de rs of t he di stric t co urt tha t h av e b een ap pe al edin th is cas e. AFFIRMED.

4