### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60235

AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF COLUMBUS,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

GLENDA C

. BILES, Individually, Natural M other of David Biles, Deceased, and Ad m i n istratix of Estate of David Biles, Deceased; B EVERLY G A RRETT, Individually and Natural S ister of David Biles, Deceased; PATRICIA FINNAN, Individually and Natural Sister of David Biles, D e c eased; MICHAEL LOCKWOOD, Individually and Natural Brother of David Biles, Deceased,

Defendants - Appellants

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Southern District of Mississippi

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

T h is ca se a rise s o u t o f th e p a y m e n t o f b e n e fits p u rsu a n t to a n A m e rica n
F a m ily L ife A ssu ra n ce C o m p a n y o f C o lu m b u s (“A fla c”) a ccid e n t in su ra n ce

p o licy

. T h e d istrict co u rt g ra n te d A fla c’s su m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n a n d

a w a rd e d A fla c th e re lie f i t so u g h t b e lo w : a n o rd e r c o m p e l lin g D e fe n d a n ts

A p p e lla n ts to su b m it t h e ir sta te -la w c l a im s a g a i n st A fla c a n d i ts a g e n ts to

a rb i tra tio n . W e A F F IR M

. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 30, 2013

Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

I.

In late 2006, David Biles (“the decedent”) allegedly comp l e ted an application for an Aflac a ccident i nsurance p o licy

. The application i ncluded a
form that required applicants to acknowledge recei p t o f a statement outlining

the details of t h e accident p olicy’s b inding arbitration clause (the “arbit r a t i o n acknowledgment form”). The application and the a rbitration acknowledgment

form both contain a signature Aflac purports to be that of the decedent. Aflac

issued a policy to the decedent e ffe c t i v e January 1, 2007 (the “Policy”).
Tragically, Aflac’s obligation to pay death benefits p ursuant t o the terms of the
Policy arose less than one year later when t he decedent suddenly passed away.
Aflac paid death benefits to the two named b eneficiaries: G l e n d a B i les (“Ms.
Biles”)

, t he decedent’s mother, and K en Ashley (“Ashley”), the decedent’s
roommate and life partner.

In S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 0
, M s

. B i l es, a nd the decedent’s siblings Beverly Garrett,

Patricia Finnan, and Michael Lockwood (collectively “Appellants”), filed suit in

the Circui t C ourt of the First Judicial D i strict o f Hinds County, Mississippi,
alleging that Aflac should not have paid any por t i o n o f t he death b enefit from

the Policy to Ashley. Appellants named Afl a c , A s h ley, Brendan Hammond (“Hammond”), the Aflac sales associate who s old t he policy to the decedent, and

the bar and its owners where t h e decedent was drinking on the night of his
death, as defendan t s

. The Appellants’ relevant state claims are premised on allegations that Ashley conspired with Hammo n d t o fraudulently o btain the
Policy with the intent to end the decedent’s life and collect t h e P o licy’s death

b e n e f i t s

. Appellants further allege that Ashley’s actions on the night of t h e
decedent’s death c aused or contributed to t h e d e a t h o f th e d e ce d e n t a n d

, th e re fo re , A fla c sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n th a t A s h le y w a s p ro h ib ite d fro m co lle ctin g
d e a th b e n e fits o n th e P o licy

. In e a rly N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 0
, A fla c se n t a le tte r to A p p e lla n t s d e m a n d in g th a t

th e y su b m it th e i r cla im s a g a in st A fla c a n d i ts a g e n t s t o a rb itra tio n p u rsu a n t

2 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

to t h e te rm s o f t h e P o licy

. O n N o v e m b e r 1 7
, 2 0 1 0
, a fte r t h e A p p e lla n ts re fu se d

to co m p ly w ith A fla c’s d e m a n d , A fla c file d a P e t itio n to C o m p e l A rb itra tio n in

th e d istrict co u r t, p u rsu a n t to S e ctio n 4 o f th e F e d e ra l A rb itra tio n A ct, 9 U .S

. C

. § 4
, se e k in g a n o r d e r t h a t A p p e lla n ts’ cla im s a g a in s t A fla c a n d its a g e n ts m u s t

b e a rb itra te d

. 1

A f la c m o v e d fo r su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. A p p e lla n ts re sp o n d e d in o p p o sitio n

to A f la c’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n , co n t e n d in g t h a t A fla c ’s fe d e ra l a ctio n
sh o u ld b e d ism isse d b a s e d o n C o l o ra d o R iv er W a ter C o n serv a tio n D istrict v

. U n ited S ta tes , 4 2 4 U .S

. 8 0 0 (1 9 7 6 ), a n d th a t t h e a rbitration acknowledgment

form w a s i n v a l i d b e ca u s e th e sig n a tu re , p u rp o rte d to b e th a t o f t h e d e ce d e n t,

w a s a fo rg e ry

. 2 T h e o n ly e v id e n ce o f fe r e d in s u p p o r t o f A p p e lla n ts’ re sp o n se

w a s t h e a ffid a v it o f a h a n d w ritin g e x p e rt— R o b e rt F o le y (“F o le y ” )

— w h o

e x p la in e d th a t it w a s p ro b a b le th a t th e s ig n a tu re w a s a fo rg e ry

. I n t h e

re sp o n s e , A p p e lla n t s a lso re q u e ste d d isco v e r y p u rsu a n t to R u l e 5 6 (d ) o f t h e
F e d e ra l R u le s o f C iv il P ro ce d u re , e x p la in in g th a t A fla c h a d fa ile d t o m a k e
H a m m o n d a v a ila b le fo r a d e p o siti o n a n d th a t H a m m o n d ’s d e p o sitio n w a s

n e ce ssa ry to “fu lly a n d co m p le te ly re sp o n d ” to A f l a c ’ s su m m a ry j u d g m e n t

m o tio n

. A f

la c re p lie d to th e A p p e lla n ts’ re sp o n se b y f ilin g su p p l e m e n ta l

e v i d e n ce in su p p o r t o f i t s su m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n a n d m o v in g to strik e
F o le y ’s a ffid a v it. A p p e l la n ts file d a re sp o n se to A fla c’s m o tio n to strik e F o le y ’s

1 Af lac als o f

iled a m otion to com p el arbitration in the s tate c o u r t p r o c e e d ings in D ecem ber 2010. In M ay 2011, the s tate court jud ge is s ued an ord er exp laining that there w ere “is s ues regard ing the valid ity of the s ignatures ” on th e ap p lication and arbitration ack now led gm ent form

. The s tate court jud ge ord ered the p a r ties to cond uct d is covery on is sues relating to the valid ity of the s ignatures and d enied Af lac’s m otion to com p el arbitration

w ithout p rejud ice, w ith perm is s ion to re- f ile the m otion up on com p letion of the d is cover y. Bas ed on the parties ’ brief ing, no f urther p rogres s has occurred in the s tate court p roceed ings related to the valid ity of the s ignature on the arbitration ack now led gm ent form

.

2 Ap p ellants ’ theory of the cas e is that the s ignature on the ap p lication f or the Policy,

as w ell as the s ignature on the arbitration ack now led gm ent f orm , are both forgeries com p leted by As hley. Af

lac notes t h a t i f t h e Ap p ellants ’ theory w ere p roven, M s

. Biles w ould not be entitled to any p roceed s f rom the Policy becaus e the Policy its elf w ould be void

.

3 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

a ffid a v it, a n d a lso re n e w e d th e ir m o tio n fo r R u le 5 6 (d ) d isco v e ry

. O n S e p t e mber 8, 2011, t he di s t r i c t co u rt e n te re d its m e m o r a n d u m o p in io n

a n d o rd e r (th e “S e p te m b e r 8 th O rd e r”) th a t, in re le v a n t p a rt: (1 ) d e n ie d

A p p e lla n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss b a se d o n C o lo ra d o R iv er ; (2 ) d e n ie d A p p e lla n ts’

R u le 5 6 (d ) d isco v e r y re q u e st; a n d ( 3 ) re se rv e d ru lin g o n A fla c’s su m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n a n d m o tio n to strik e F o l e y ’s a ffid a v it p e n d i n g a D a u b ert

h e a rin g

. S h o rtly th e re a fte r, A p p e lla n ts file d a m o tio n fo r re co n sid e ra tio n o f t h e
d istrict co u rt’s d e n i a l o f A p p e lla n ts’ R u le 5 6 (d ) d isco v e ry r e q u e st. A p p e lla n t s

a lso file d a m o ti o n t o s t rik e th e a ffid a v it o f A fla c ’s sig n a tu re e x p e rt, W illia m
F l y n n (“F ly n n ” ). T h e d istrict co u rt h e ld a D a u b e rt h e a rin g fo cu sin g o n e a ch

p a rtie s’ ch a lle n g e to th e e x p e rt a ffid a v its o ffe re d b y th e o p p o sin g p a r ty re la tin g

to w h e th e r th e s ig n a tu r e o n the arbitration acknowledgment for m w a s t h e
d e ce d e n t’s o r, in s te a d , w a s a fo rg e ry

. O n N o v e m b e r 3
, 2 0 1 1
, th e d istrict co u rt e n te re d i t s m e m o ra n d u m o p in io n

a n d o rd e r (th e “N o v e m b e r 3 rd O rd e r”) th a t : ( 1 ) d e n i e d A p p e lla n ts’ m o tio n f o r

re co n s i d e ra tio n ; (2 ) d e n ie d A p p e lla n ts’ m o tio n to strik e F ly n n ’s a ffid a v it; (3 )

g ra n te d A fla c’s m o tio n to strik e F o le y ’s a ffid a v it; a n d (4 ) g ra n te d A fla c’s

su m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o tio n

. O n th e sa m e d a y , th e d istrict c o u rt a lso e n te re d a n

o rd e r a d m in istra tiv e l y clo s in g th e fe d e ra l a ctio n p e n d in g n o tifica tio n b y t h e

p a rtie s th a t th e a rb itra tio n p ro ce e d in g s h a d b e e n co m p l e t e d

. O n M a rch 1 3
, 2 0 1 2
, t h e d istrict co u rt, p u rsu a n t to A p p e lla n ts’ m o t io n f o r ce r tifica tio n

p u rsu a n t to R u l e 5 4 (b ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f C iv il P ro ce d u r e , e n te re d a fin a l
ju d g m e n t co m p e llin g a rb itra tio n . A p p e lla n ts tim e ly file d a n o tice o f a p p e a l.

I I.

A p p e l l a n ts f

irst co n te n d th a t th e d i strict co u rt sh o u ld h a v e a b sta in e d

u n d e r C o l o ra d o R iv er in d e fe re n ce to t h e sta te co u rt p ro ce e d in g s o n g o in g in

M ississip p i re la tin g to A fla c’s p a y m e n t o f b e n e fits to A sh l e y

. “W e a p p ly a tw o

tie re d s ta n d a rd o f r e v i e w in a b ste n tio n ca se s

. A lth o u g h w e re v ie w a d istrict

4 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

co u r t’s a b ste n t i o n ru lin g fo r a b u se o f d iscre t io n , w e r e v ie w d e n o v o w h e th e r t h e

re q u ire m e n ts o f a p a rticu la r a b ste n tio n d o ctrin e a re sa t i sfie d

. ” B ro w n v

. P a c.
L i fe In s. C o

. , 4 6 2 F

. 3 d 3 8 4 , 3 9 4 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ).

C o lo ra d o R iv er a b ste n t io n is a p p ro p ria te o n ly w h e n t h e fe d e ra l a n d sta te

“su its a re p a ra lle l, h a v in g th e sa m e p a rtie s and t h e same issues.” Stewart v. W.

H e r i t age Ins. Co.

, 438 F .3d 488, 491 (5th Cir. 2 006) (citation o mitted)

. T h e
federal and state l awsui t s i n this case a re far f rom parallel. The state action
undisputedly involves a d d i t i o nal defendants and issues not involved in the

federal action, which is l imite d t o the narrow issue of whether arbitration

a p p l i e s to the dispute between Appellants and Aflac and i ts agents. Althoug h

we h a v e noted that it might not be necessary that the parties and issues are absolutely identical i n every instance for Colorado River a b s t ention to be
appropriate, see Brown

, 462 F.3d a t 395 n.7, this c ase i s not an example of the
exception to the general rule.

E v e n if t h e s t a te a n d f e d e ra l ca s e s w e re s u f ficie n tly p a ra lle l, C o lo ra d o
R iv er a b ste n ti on woul d be i n a p p ro p ria te b e ca u s e e x ce p t io n a l circu m sta n ce s a re

n o t p re se n t h e r e

. C o l o ra d o R iv er a b ste n tio n a llo w s a co u rt to a b sta in fro m a

ca se o n ly in “e x ce p tio n a l circu m sta n c e s.” B ro w n , 4 6 2 F

. 3 d a t 3 9 4

. C o u r t s

co n s id e r six fa cto r s to d e te rm in e w h e th e r “e x ce p tio n a l circu m sta n ce s” e x ist:
(1 ) a ssu m p tio n b y e i t h e r sta t e o r fe d e ra l co u rt o v e r a r e s; (2 )

re la tiv e in co n v e n ie n ce o f th e fo ra ; (3 ) a v o i d a n c e o f p ie ce m e a l litig a tio n ; (4 ) o rd e r in w h ic h j u r i s d ictio n w a s o b ta in e d b y th e

co n cu rre n t f

o ra ; (5 ) e x te n t fe d e ra l l a w p ro v i d e s t h e ru le s o f d e cisio n

o n th e m e rits; a n d (6 ) a d e q u a cy o f th e sta te p r o c e e d in g s in

p ro te ctin g th e rig h ts o f th e p a r ty in v o k in g fe d e r a l ju risd ictio n

. Id

. a t 3 9 5 ( cita tio n s o m itte d ). D e t e rm in in g w h e th e r it is a p p ro p ria te to d ism iss

a ca s e u n d e r t h is d o ctrin e “d o e s n o t re st o n a m e ch a n i ca l ch e ck list, b u t o n a

ca re fu l b a l a n c in g o f th e im p o r ta n t fa cto r s a s th e y a p p ly i n a g iv e n ca se , w ith t h e
b a la n ce h e a v ily w e ig h te d i n fa v o r o f th e e x e rcise o f ju risd ictio n

. ” M o ses H

. C o n e
M em . H o sp

. v . M

ercu ry C o n s tr. C o

. , 4 6 0 U .S . 1
, 1 6 (1 9 8 3 ).

5 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

In th is ca se , n o n e o f t h e six fa cto rs w e ig h in fa v o r o f a b ste n tio n

. F irst,

n e ith e r th e s ta te n o r f

e d e ra l c o u rt a ssu m e d ju risd ictio n o v e r a n y res ; th e re fo re ,
t h e f irst fa cto r w e ig h s in fa v o r o f e x e rcisin g fe d e ra l ju risd ictio n

. S ee S tew a rt , 4 3 8 F

. 3 d a t 4 9 2 & n .4

. S e co n d

, b e ca u se t h e sta te a n d fe d e ra l co u r th o u se s
h e a rin g th e se c a se s a re in th e sa m e city

, th e in co n v e n i e n c e f a cto r w e ig h s in

fa v o r o f e x e r cisin g fe d e r a l ju risd ictio n

. Id

. a t 4 9 2 (“W h e n c o u r ts a re in th e sa m e

g e o g ra p h i c lo ca tio n , th e in c o n v e n ie n ce fa cto r w e ig h s a g a in st a b ste n tio n .”
(cita tio n o m itte d )). T h i r d

, a n y co n ce rn o f p ie ce m e a l litig a tio n h e re is

o u tw e i g h e d b y th e stro n g fe d e ra l p o licy su p p o rtin g a rb itra t i o n

. S ee, e.g

. , B r o w n , 4 6 2 F .3 d a t 3 9 6 (“A l lo w in g a fe d e ra l co u rt to o r d e r a r b i tra tio n , e v e n

w h e re a sta te co u r t m a y co n stru e a n a rb itra tio n cla u se d iffe re n tly

, is fu lly

co n s iste n t w ith . . . e sta b lish e d co n g re ssio n a l in te n t.”).

T h e fo u rth fa cto r a lso w e ig h s in fa v o r o f e x e rcisin g fe d e ra l ju risd ictio n

. A p p e lla n ts file d th e i r co m p la in t in sta te co u rt o n September 10, 2010, and Aflac

filed its federal complaint on N ovember 17, 2010. Significant progress has been

made in t h e f

e deral lawsuit; in fact, the only d isputed issue has been fully

resolved (pending disp o s i t i o n o f this a p peal) by the district court’s order granting

summary judgment, w hich was e ntered after the district court considered
discovery and ruled on the parties’ motions to s trike exp e r t t estimony after
holding a Daubert hearing. In the s tate court proceedings, although the judge

concluded that d iscovery was required to determine whether the disputed
signatures were forgeries, no d iscovery on the d isputed i ssue has been comp l eted

to date. Because this f ederal court proceeding has clearly p rogressed further

than the related state court proceeding, t h e f o u rth f actor favors federal
jurisdiction. S ee, e.g. , S tew a r t , 4 3 8 F

. 3 d a t 4 9 2

– 9 3 (e x p la in in g th a t th e fo u rth

fa cto r “o n ly fa v o rs a b ste n t io n w h e n th e fe d e ra l ca se h a s n o t p ro ce e d in g p a st t h e
filin g o f th e co m p la in t”).

T h e fifth fa cto r w e ig h s in fa v o r o f e x e rcisin g fe d e ra l j u r isd ictio n b e ca u se

6 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

th e o n ly le g a l issu e d isp u te d in th e fe d e ra l la w su it w a s w h e th e r th e A p p e lla n ts’

u n d e rly in g cla im s sh o u l d b e s u b m i tte d to a rb itra tio n u n d e r 9 U .S .C

. § 4

— a n
issu e g o v e r n e d b y fe d e r a l la w w h e th e r i t is ra ise d in sta te o r fe d e ra l c o u rt. S ee
S n a p -o n T o o ls C o rp

. v

. M

a so n , 1 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 1
, 1 2 6 6 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) ( citin g M o ses
H

. C o n e , 4 6 0 U .S

. a t 9 4 1 ). F in a lly

, a lth o u g h A fla c fu lly co n ce d e s th a t th e sta te

co u r t is a n a d e q u a te fo ru m , th e six th fa cto r , b y its v e ry n a t u r e , d o e s n o t w e ig h

in fa v o r o f a b ste n tio n

. S t e w a r t , 4 3 8 F .3 d a t 4 9 3 (“T h e s ix th fa cto r is e ith e r a

n e u t ra l fa cto r o r o n e th a t w e ig h s a g a i n st a b ste n tio n .” (cita tio n o m itte d )).

B e ca u s e t h e federal and state lawsuits in this c a se are not p arallel and

no factor w eighs in favor of abstention, w e co n c l u d e th a t th e d istrict co u rt

co rre ctly d e clin e d A p p e lla n t s’ in v ita tio n to a b s ta in p u rsu a n t to C o l o ra d o R iv er

. III.

A p p e lla n t s n e x t m a in t a in

, w ith o u t re le v a n t ca s e su p p o r t, th a t A fla c’s

d e sire d re lie f— a n o rd e r c o m p e llin g A p p e lla n t s t o a rb i tra te th e ir cla im s a g a in s t

A f la c a n d its a g e n ts a n d e n j o in in g A p p e lla n ts fro m co n t in u in g t o l itig a te su ch

cla im s i n sta t e co u rt— is b a rre d u n d e r th e A n ti-In ju n ctio n A c t. T h e A n tiI n j u n c t i o n A ct p ro v id e s th a t “[a ] co u rt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s m a y n o t g ra n t a n
in j u n ctio n to sta y p r o ce e d in g s i n a S ta te co u rt e x ce p t a s e x p r e ssly a u th o rize d

b y A ct o f C o n g re s s, o r w h e re n e ce s sa ry in a id o f its ju risd ictio n , o r to p ro te ct o r

e ffe c tu a te its ju d g m e n t s.” 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 8 3

. A n o rd e r co m p e llin g a rb itra tio n , i.e.
, th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd e r b e lo w , is a f i n a l d e cisio n th a t q u a l ifie s a s a “ju d g m e n t” u n d e r th e A n t i-In ju n c tio n A ct. A m

. H erita g e L ife I n s

. C o

. v

. O rr , 2 9 4 F .3 d 7 0 2
, 7 1 4 n .3 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (“B e ca u se a n o rd e r co m p e llin g a rb itra tio n

e n te re d in a n i n d e p e n d e n t p ro ce e d i n g is a fin a l d e cisio n , it a lso q u a lifie s a s a ‘ju d g m e n t’ u n d e r th e A n ti-In ju n ctio n A c t.”). W e h a v e h e ld t h a t a d istrict co u rt

h a s th e d iscre tio n to issu e a n o rd e r sta y in g a re l a te d sta te co u rt p ro ce e d in g it

h a s d e t e rm in e d m u s t b e su b m itte d to a r b itra tio n if th e d istrict co u rt co n clu d e s
th a t it is n e ce ssa ry t o p ro te c t o r e ffe ctu a te its o rd e r co m p e l lin g a rb itra tio n

. Id

. ;

7 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

C o n seco F

in

. S erv icin g C o rp

. v

. S h i n a ll

, 2 0 0 2 W L 3 1 3 1 9 3 6 8
, a t * 7 ( 5 th C ir. O ct.

1
, 2 0 0 2 ) (u n p u b lish e d b u t p e r su a siv e ); see a lso G rea t E a r t h C o m p a n ies, In c. v

. S i m o n s , 2 8 8 F .3 d 8 7 8
, 8 9 4 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t a n in ju n ctio n o f sta te

p ro ce e d in g s is n e ce ssa r y t o p ro te ct t h e fin a l ju d g m e n t o f a d istrict co u rt o n t h e

v a l i d i ty o f a n a rb i tra tio n cla u se ).

A c co rd in g ly

, th e d i strict co u rt’s o rd e r co m p e llin g A p p e lla n ts to a rb itra te

th e ir cla im s a g a in st A fla c a n d its a g e n ts a n d e n jo in in g A p p e l la n ts fro m

co n t in u in g to litig a te su ch c la im s i n s t a t e c o u rt is n o t b a r re d b y th e A n tiIn ju n ctio n A ct b e ca u se it f a lls w i th in th e e x ce p tio n f o r in ju n c t io n s n e ce ssa ry to

p ro te c t o r e f

fe ctu a te th e d istrict co u rt’s p rio r ju d g m e n t.

IV

. A p p e lla n ts’ th ird co n t e n tio n o n a p p e a l is th a t t h e d istrict co u rt a b u se d its

d iscre t io n b y d e n y in g th e ir tim e l y re q u e st fo r a d d itio n a l d isco v e ry to o v e rco m e
A f la c’s su m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n

. In itia lly

, th e re is n o d isp u te th a t

A p p e lla n ts’ R u le 5 6 (d ) m o tio n re q u e stin g a d d itio n a l d isco v e ry w a s file d b e fo re
th e d i s trict co u rt ru le d o n A f la c’s su m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o tio n a n d p la ce d t h e
d istrict co u rt o n n o tice th a t A p p e lla n ts w e re s e e k i n g d isco v e ry p e rta in in g to t h e

su m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o tio n

. S ee E n p la n a r, In c. v

. M

a r sh

, 1 1 F

. 3 d 1 2 8 4
, 1 2 9 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (listin g th e th re e re q u ire m e n ts to re ce iv e a c o n tin u a n ce f o r

a d d itio n a l d isco v e ry u n d e r R u le 5 6 )

. T h e o n l y issu e o n a p p e a l is w h e th e r
A p p e lla n ts d e m o n s tra t e d to th e d istrict co u rt w ith “re a so n a b le sp e cificity ” h o w
th e r e q u e ste d d isco v e ry w o u ld in flu e n c e th e o u t c o m e o f A fla c’s p e n d in g

su m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o tio n

. S ee id

. A

. W e r e v i e w a d istrict co u rt’s d e n ia l o f a R u l e 5 6 (d ) m o t io n fo r a b u s e o f

d is c r e t i o n

. R a b y v

. L iv in g sto n , 6 0 0 F .3 d 5 5 2
, 5 6 1 (5 t h C ir. 2 0 1 0 ) (cita tio n

o m itte d ). R u le 5 6 (d ) m o tio n s fo r a d d itio n a l d isco v e ry a re “‘b ro a d l y fa v o re d a n d

sh o u ld b e lib e r a l l y g ra n te d ’ b e ca u se th e ru le is d e sig n e d to ‘sa fe g u a rd

8 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

n o n

- m o v in g p a rtie s fro m su m m a ry j u d g m e n t m o tio n s t h a t th e y ca n n o t

a d e q u a te ly o p p o se .’” Id

. (q u o tin g C u lw ell v

. C ity o f F o r t W o r th

, 4 6 8 F .3 d 8 6 8
, 8 7 1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) ). N e v e rth e le ss, n o n -m o v in g p a rtie s re q u e stin g R u le 5 6 (d )

re lie f “m a y n o t sim p ly re l y o n v a g u e a sse r tio n s th a t a d d itio n a l d isco v e ry w ill

p ro d u ce n e e d e d

, b u t u n sp e cifie d

, fa cts.” Id

. (q u o t i n g S E C v

. S p en ce & G reen
C h em

. C o

. , 6 1 2 F .2 d 8 9 6
, 9 0 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 )). In ste a d

, th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty

m u st “se t fo rth a p la u s ib le b a sis fo r b e lie v in g th a t sp e cifie d fa cts, su sce p t i b l e

o f c o l l e c tio n w ith in a r e a so n a b le tim e fra m e , p ro b a b ly e x ist a n d in d ica te h o w
th e e m e rg e n t f

a cts, i f a d d u ce d

, w ill i n flu e n ce th e o u tco m e o f th e p e n d in g

su m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o tio n .” Id

. ( q u o tin g C .B

. T ru ck i n g , In c. v

. W

a ste M g m t.

In c. , 1 3 7 F .3 d 4 1
, 4 4 (1 s t C ir. 1 9 9 8 )); see a lso W a sh in g t o n v

. A llsta te In s. C o

. , 9 0 1 F .2 d 1 2 8 1
, 1 2 8 5 ( 5 th C ir.1 9 9 0 ) (“T h is c o u r t h a s lo n g re co g n ize d th a t a

p la in tiff’s e n tit l e m e n t to d isco v e ry p rio r to a ru lin g o n a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t is n o t u n lim ite d

, a n d m a y b e cu t o ff w h e n th e r e c o rd sh o w s th a t t h e

re q u e ste d d isco v e ry is n o t l ik e ly to p ro d u ce th e f a cts n e e d e d b y th e p la in tiff to

w ith sta n d a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t .” (cita tio n s o m itte d )).

B

. The onl y d isp u te d fa ct issu e re le v a n t to A fla c ’ s s ummar y j udgment mot i on

w a s w h e th e r th e d e ce d e n t’s sig n a tu re o n th e arbitration acknowledgment form

w a s a fo r g e ry

. A p p e l la n ts, b o th b e fo re th e d istrict co u rt a n d n o w o n a p p e a l

,

e x p la in th a t d e p o sin g H a m m o n d w a s n e ce ssa ry f o r th e m to a d e q u a te ly o p p o se
A f la c’s su m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n

. 3 T h e d istrict co u r t, in re le v a n t p a rt, d e n ie d

A p p e lla n ts’ R u le 5 6 (d ) m o tio n , e x p la in in g th a t “it is cle a r th a t t h e [A p p e lla n ts]

h a v e fa ile d to sh o w th a t d isco v e ry is re q u ire d in o rd e r to fu lly re sp o n d to t h e

m o tio n .”

3 Ap p ellants ’ exp lanation f or w hy H am m ond ’s d ep os ition w as neces s ary fails to s p ecif y the f acts that could be obtained in a d ep os ition. Rather, the exp lanation m erely f ocus es on the und erlying allegation that H am m ond “w as involved in the f orgery o f t h e s i g n a ture on the

p olicy of ins urance in this cas e. ”

9 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

Im p o r ta n tly

, th e critica l fa c tu a l d isp u t e w a s w h e th er t he s ig n a tu re o n t h e
arbitration acknowledgment form w a s a fo rg e ry

. A cco rd in g ly

, th e q u e stio n f o r
th e d istrict co u rt w a s w h e th e r it w a s lik e ly t h a t th e r e q u e ste d d isco v e ry w o u ld

p r o d u c e th e f

a cts A p p e lla n ts n e e d e d to o p p o se A fla c’s su m m a ry j u d g m e n t

m o t io n

. S ee W

a sh in g to n , 9 0 1 F .2 d a t 1 2 8 5

. A t th e tim e A p p e lla n ts re q u e ste d

th e a d d i tio n a l d isco v e ry , H a m m o n d h a d a lre a d y su b m itte d a n a ffid a v it

a tte stin g th a t h e w itn e sse d th e d e ce d e n t sig n th e p o licy a n d t h e arbitration
acknowledgment form. A lth o u g h A p p e lla n t s w e re c e r ta in ly h o p e f u l th a t

H a m m o n d w o u ld re a d ily a d m it in a d e p o s i t i o n th a t h e a ctu a lly fo rg e d t h e sig n a tu re a t issu e , th e d istrict co u r t r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d h a v e co n clu d e d th a t it

w a s n o t l ik e ly th a t H a m m o n d w o u ld a d m it t o p e rju r y a n d fra u d in a
d e p o sitio n

. 4 O t h e r th a n su ch a d ire ct a d m issio n , it is u n c l e a r w h a t e v id e n ce

co u l d h a v e b e e n o b ta in e d fro m d e p o sin g H a m m o n d th a t w o u ld h a v e b e e n

re le v a n t to th e d isp o sitiv e le g a l issu e , i.e.
, w h e th e r th e d e ce d e n t’s sig n a tu re o n
th e a rbitration acknowledgment form w a s a fo rg e r y

. 5 B e ca u s e th e b u rd e n is o n
th e p a rty r e q u e stin g a d d itio n a l d isco v e ry to s h o w h o w t h e p o te n tia l d isco v e ry , if i t is o b ta in e d

, w ill in flu e n ce th e o u tco m e o f th e su m m a ry j u d g m e n t m o ti o n , th e f a ct th a t i t is u n cle a r w h a t A p p e lla n ts h o p e d f o r b e y o n d a d ire ct a d m issio n

w e ig h s in fa v o r o f th e d istrict co u rt’s d e cisio n

.

4 M oreover, ad d itional record evid ence, ind ep end ent of H am m ond ’s af f id avit, s trongly ind icated that the deced ent s igned the Policy ap p lication and arbitration ack n o w led gm ent f orm

. Sp ecif

ically, the d eced ent’s f orm er em ployer p rovid ed an af f id avi t s t a t i ng that the d ec e dent inf

orm ed her of his d ecis ion to p urchas e the Policy and reques ted that the Policy

p rem ium s be p aid via a p ayroll d ed uction. The em p loyer authorized this reques t and m ad e p ayroll d ed uctions to p ay the Policy p rem ium s

. Thes e s tatem ents by the d eced ent’s em p loyer f urther red uced the lik elihood that H am m ond w ould ad m it that the deced ent d id not s ign the Policy ap p lication and arbitration ack now led gm ent form

.

5 The reques ted dis covery w as not relevant to the exp ert tes tim ony that was the center of the d is p ute below

. Ap p ellants ’ exp ert ad m itted d uring the D aubert hearing that H am m ond ’s d ep os ition w as not neces s ary f or him to p rovid e his op i n i o n o n w hether the

s ignature w as a f

orgery. Theref

ore, the cri t i c a l t e s tim ony in this cas e— the exp ert op inions relating to w hether the s ignature w as a f orgery— w ould not have been im p acted by H am m ond ’s d ep os ition.

10 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

In co n clu sio n , a lth o u g h it m ig h t h a v e b e e n a p p ro p ria te fo r th e d istrict

co u r t to a llo w A p p e lla n t s to d e p o se H a m m o n d p rio r to ru lin g o n A fla c’s

su m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o tio n , th e d istrict c o u rt’s d e cisio n to d e n y th e m o tio n w a s

w ith in its d iscre t io n

. T h e d i sco v e ry re q u e ste d b y A p p e ll a n t s w a s u n lik e ly to

re su lt in a d ire ct a d m i ssio n b y H a m m o n d th a t h e h a d co m m i tte d p e rju ry a n d

f r a u d a n d

, th e re f

o re , w o u ld n o t h a v e in flu e n c e d t h e o u tco m e o f th e su m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o t io n

. S ee id

. V

. F i n a lly

, A p p e lla n t s ra ise a sin g le ch a lle n g e to th e m e rits o f t h e d istr i c t

co u r t’s g ra n t o f su m m a r y ju d g m e n t i n fa v o r o f A f l a c

. S p e c ifica lly

, A p p e lla n t s

co n t e n d th a t th e d istrict co u rt e rre d b e ca u se M s. G ile s’s a ffid a v it, w h ich

in c lu d e s h e r o p in io n th a t th e sig n a tu re o n th e a r b i t r a t i o n a c knowledgment form

w a s a f o rg e r y , is su f

f icie n t to cre a te a g e n u in e i s su e o f m a t e ria l fa c t o n t h e

a u th e n ticity o f th e d e c e d e n t’s sig n a tu re

. 6 B a s e d o n th e lim ite d sco p e o f

A p p e lla n ts’ a r gument s , t he onl y s ummar y- j udgment -re la te d q u e stio n o n a p p e a l

is w h e th e r M s. B i le s’s a ffid a v it is su fficie n t t o cre a te a g e n u in e i ssu e o f m a te ria l

fa ct.

A

. We review a grant of summary j u d g m e n t de novo , a pplying the same

sta n d a r d as the district court and viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the no n -moving party. A merisure I ns. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co.

, 611 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 2010) ( c i t a t ion omitted). “Summary judgment is

proper when ‘the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and

any a ffidavits show that t here is no genuine issue as t o a n y material f act and

6 Im p ortantly, Ap p ellants h a v e n o t brief ed and

, theref

ore, have w aived any p os s ible challenge to any other as p ect of the d is trict court’s ord er, includ ing its d ecis ion f ollow ing the D auber t hearing to s t rik e Foley’s af fid avit becaus e it was unreliable. See, e. g

. , Ci nel v

. Conni ck

, 15 F. 3d 1338, 1345 ( 5th Cir. 1994) (“An ap pellant aband ons all is sues not rais ed and argued in its i ni ti a l brief on ap p eal. ” ( em p has is in original) )

.
11 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of l aw.’” Id. (quoting Fed.

R. Civ. P

. 56(c)). “Although on s ummary judgment t he record i s reviewed de

novo , this court

. . . will not c o n s i d e r evidence or arguments that w ere not
presente d t o t h e district court for i ts consideration in ruling on the motion.”

Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc.

, 953 F.2d 909, 915 ( 5th Cir. 1992) ( c i t a t i o n omitted). A genuine issue of material f act exists if a reasonable jury could enter

a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc

. , 4 7 7 U.S.

2 4 2
, 2 5 2 ( 1 986). B e ca u se o u r re v ie w is d e n o v o , o u r a n a l y s is is n o t lim ite d t o
th a t e m p lo y e d b y th e d i strict co u r t, a n d w e “m a y a ffirm th e d i s t r i c t c o u rt’s

d e cisio n o n a n y b a sis p re se n te d to th e d i s t r i c t co u rt.” L eM a ire v

. L a

. D ep ’t o f

T ra n sp . & D ev

. , 4 8 0 F .3 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 (5 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) (cita tio n o m itte d ).

B

. M s. B ile s’s a f

f i d a v it, in re l e v a n t p a rt, co n ta in s h e r o p in i o n th a t t h e “sig n a tu re on t he A ck n o w l e d g m e n t o f A rb itra tio n A g re e m e n t is n o t D a v id B ile s’
sig n a tu re .” M s. B i le s’s a f fid a v it, h o w e v e r, w a s n o t p a rt o f th e su m m a ry ju d g m e n t re c o rd

. R u le 5 6 ( c)(1 ) p ro v id e s th a t “[a ] p a rty a s se rtin g th a t a fa ct c a n n o t b e o r is

g e n u in e ly d isp u te d m u st su p p o rt th e a sse r tio n b y

. . . citin g to p a rticu la r p a r t s

o f m a te ria ls in t h e r e c o r d

. ” F e d

. R

. C iv

. P

. 5 6 (c)(1 )(A ). R u le 5 6 ( c)(3 ) p ro v id e s
th a t “ [t]h e co u rt n e e d co n sid e r o n l y t h e c i te d m a te ria ls, b u t it m a y c o n sid e r

o th e r m a te ria ls in th e re co rd .” F e d

. R

. C iv

. P

. 5 6 (c)(3 ). W e h a v e e x p la in e d th a t

“R u l e 5 6 d o e s n o t im p o se u p o n th e d istrict co u rt a d u ty to sift t h ro u g h t h e

re co rd in s e a rch o f e v id e n ce to su p p o rt a p a rty ’s o p p o sitio n to su m m a ry ju d g m e n t.” A d a m s v

. T ra v elers In d em

. C o

. o f C o n n

. , 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 5 6
, 1 6 4 (5 th C ir.

2 0 0 6 ) (q u o tin g R a

g a s v

. T en n

. G a s P ip elin e C o

. , 1 3 6 F .3 d 4 5 5
, 4 5 8 (5 th C ir.

1 9 9 8 )); see also Nissho-Iwai A m. Corp. v. Kline

, 845 F.2d 1300
, 1307 (5th Cir.
1988) (concluding that a deposition “was never made part of t h e competent

summary judgment record before the district court” because the p arty opposing

12 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

summary j udgment “failed to designate, or in any way refer to, the deposition as
the source of factual support” for its response to the summary judgment motion).

T h e re co rd d e m o n s tra t e s th a t A p p e lla n ts fa ile d to co m p ly w ith R u le 5 6 (c)

w ith re s p e ct to M s. G ile s’s a ffid a v it a n d

, a cco rd in g ly

, th e a ffid a v it w a s n e v e r

m a d e p a rt o f th e su m m a ry ju d g m e n t re co rd b e fo re th e d istrict co u rt. S ee, e.g

. , Kline

, 845 F.2d at 1307. In A p p e lla n ts’ re sp o n se s to A fla c’s s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t

m o tio n s, th e o n l y e v id e n c e th e y cite d in su p p o rt o f th e i r a s s e r t i o n th a t t h e

a u th e n ticity o f th e sig n a tu re w a s g e n u i n e ly d i sp u te d w a s F o le y ’s a ffid a v it.

A f te r th e di s t r i c t c o u rt r e se r v e d its ru lin g o n A fla c’s su m m a r y ju d g m e n t m o tio n 7

and d e n ie d A p p e lla n ts’ R u le 5 6 (d ) m o tio n f o r a d d i tio n a l d isco v e ry in its

S e p te m b e r 8 th O rd e r, A p p e l la n ts file d a m o tio n to re co n s id e r th e d istrict co u rt’s

d e n ia l o f th e ir R u le 5 6 (d ) m o tio n

. T h e m o t i o n to r e co n s id e r d id n o t ch a lle n g e
th e d istrict co u rt’s d i scu s sio n o f th e m e rits o f A fla c’s su m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n
b u t
, in ste a d

, o n ly ch a lle n g e d th e d istrict c o u rt’s d e cisio n to d e n y A p p e lla n ts ’

re q u e st f

o r a d d itio n a l d isco v e ry

. A fte r A fla c file d a re sp o n se to A p p e lla n ts’

m o tio n to re co n sid e r, A p p e lla n ts file d a r epl y wi t h Ms

. Bi l es’s a ffid a v it a tta ch e d

. In th e r e p ly itse lf— w h ich p rim a rily so u g h t a d d itio n a l d isco v e ry

— A p p e lla n t s
d id n o t e x p l a in w h a t p u rp o se M s . B i le s’s a f fid a v it se rv e d . A p p e lla n ts fa ile d to

file a m o tio n t o e x p a n d th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t r e co rd t o in clu d e M s B ile s’s

a ffid a v it.

T h e re is n o in d i ca t io n in th e re co rd o r b rie f in g th a t A p p e lla n t s p ro p e rly

b ro u g h t th e a ffid a v it t o th e d istrict co u rt’s a tte n tio n i n a cco rd a n ce w ith R u le 5 6

. A c co rd in g ly

, w e co n clu d e th a t M s. G i le s’s a ffid a v it w a s n e v e r m a d e p a rt o f t h e

su m m a r y j u d g m e n t re co rd b e fo re th e d istrict co u rt a n d th e re fo re fa i l s to cre a te

7 The d is trict court conclud ed that a Da ubert hearing w as neces sary to determ ine if M r. Foley’s exp ert tes tim ony w as reliable. The d is trict court noted in its ord er that if it conclud ed that M r. Foley’s tes tim ony w as inad m is s ible und er D a ubert

, then it w ould grant Af lac’s

s um m ary jud gm ent m otion becaus e “d ef end ants have of

f ered no other evid ence” that w ould
create a genuine is s ue of m aterial f act on the forgery is s ue.

13 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 13 Date Filed: 04/30/2013No. 12-60235

a g e n u i n e issu e o f m a te ria l fa ct o n th e a u th e n ticity o f th e d e ce d e n t’s sig n a tu re

. V I.

F o r th e fo re g o in g r e a s o n s, w e A F F IR M t h e d istrict co u r t’s e n try o f

su m m a r y ju d g m e n t a n d o rd e r co m p e llin g a rb itra ti o n o f A p p e l la n ts’ cla im s

a g a in st A fla c a n d its a g e n ts.

14 Case: 12-60235 Document: 00512225136 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/30/2013