Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 31142 S u m m ary C al en da r

TR I NI DAD S UYAPABAR AHON A, P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee

v. D IL L A R D ’ S , IN C ., fo r m e r lyk n o w n a s D illa r d D e p a r tm e n t S to r e s , In c ., D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 05- c v- 00152

B e fo r e K IN G , S T E W A R T , a n d H AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * A pp el l an tD i l l ard’ s, Inc. ( “ D i l l ard’ s” ) ap pea l s t h e di st ri ct court’ s deci si on t o vacate an arbi t rat i on aw ard f or f rau d u n der t h e F ederalA rbi t rat i on A ct ( “ F AA ” )

. D i l l ard’ s argues t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n v acati n g t h e arbi t rat i on awar d. W e ag r e e . Acc o r di ngl y, w e r e ve r s e t he j udg m e nto f t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd
r e m a n d

. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 26, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-31142 Document: 00511091271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 31142

2 I . F ACT S AND PROC EDURAL HI S TORY D i l l ard’ s i s a depa rt m en tst ore c h ai n w i t h loc ati on s throu gh ou tt h e U n i t ed St at es , i ncl udi ng H oum a, Loui si ana. App el l ee Tri ni dad Suyapa B ar ahona w as a sal esperson i n D i l l ard’ s H ou m a st ore un t i l s h e w as t erm i n ated by P atr i ck Bro us s ar d, w ho w as t he H o um a s t o r e m ana ge r . M s . Bar aho na be l i e ve d t hats he
w as t erm i n ated i n vi ol ati on o f T itl e V II , an d sh e broug h tt h i s s u i tagainst D illa r d ’ s , a lle g in gth a t s h e w a s te r m in a te d e ith e rb e c a u s e o f h e rra c e o rin
r e ta lia tio n fo rh e rco m p la in ts o f d is c r im in a tio n . M s. B ar ahona’ s em pl oym entc ont r ac tw i t h D i l l ard ’ s c ont ai ned an arbi t rat i on agreem en t , so t h e di st ri ctcourt , w i t h the pa rt i es’con sent, st ayed her case t o al l ow t h e parti es t o arbi t rat e her cl ai m s. D u ri n g t h e arbi t rat i on pr o c e e di ngs , t he pa r t i e s c o nduc t e d d i s c o ve r y, w hi c h i nc l ude d d e po s i t i o ns a nd docu m en tre q u est s, an d the pa rt i es part i ci pa t ed i n a t h ree- da y arbi t rat i on h eari n g w he r e t he y w e r e g i ve n t he o ppo r t uni t y t o pr e s e ntt he i re vi de nc e a nd
ar gum e nt s . On t he t hi r d d ayo f t he he ar i ng, M r . Br o us s ard ap pear e d a nd t e s t i f i e d a s a w i t ne s s . M s . Bar aho na’ s c o uns e lqu est i o ne d M r . Br o us s ar d o n a
num be ro f

m a t t e r s , i n c l u d i n gwh e t he rhe e ve rc o m m uni c at e d v i a e - m ai lw i t h a ny D illa r d ’ s e m p lo y e e re g a r d in gM s . B a r a h o n a . M r . B r o u s s a r d a n s w e r e d , “Y e s .” D i l l ar d’ s , ho w e ve r , ha d no tpr o duc e d M r . Br o us s ar d’ s e - m ai l s dur i ng t he di s c o ve r y pha s e o f

t he a r bi t r at i o n. The r e as o n f o rD i l l ar d’ s fai l ur e t o pr o duc e t he
e - m ai l s w as nev e rel uc i da t e d, as nei t he rpa r t y e l i c i t e d a ny t e s t i m o ny as t o w hy th e e -m a ils w e r e e ith e ro v e r lo o k e d o rin te n tio n a llyn o t p r o d u c e d

. In resp on se t o M r. B rou ssa rd ’ s testi m on y, D i l l a rd ’ s cou n sel m ov ed to conti n u e t h e a rbi t rat i on p roceedi n g so that D i l l ard’ s c ou l d p rodu ce t h e e- m ai l s. M s . Bar aho na’ s c o u n s e lr e f us e d t o c o ns e ntt o D i l l ar d’ s m o t i o n, s t at i ng t hathe Case: 09-31142 Document: 00511091271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 31142

3 w as o bj e c t i ng t o t he c o nt i nuan c e “ about a s m uc h a s a nyb o dyc an” a nd t hathe
w ou l d “hav e t o app eali f t h is th in g w as adjourned

. ” Th e arbi t rat or denied D i l l ar d’ s m ot i on t o c ont i nue. The ar bi t r at orpenal i ze d D i l l ar d’ s by dr aw i ng an ad verse i n ference aga i n stD i l l ard’ s f or i t s fai l u re t o produ ce M r. B roussard’ s em ai l s . The pa r t i e s t he n c o m pl et ed t he he ar i ng ands ubm i t t e d t he c as e t o t he arbi t rat or f

or hi s determ i n ati on . D espi t e t h e adv erse i n ference, t h e arbi t rat or rul ed i n favor of

D i l l ard’ s, f

i n di n g t h at M s. B arah on a di d n otcarr y h er burden
o f p r o o f o n h e rd is c r im in a tio n a n d re ta lia tio n cla im s . Af t e rt he a r bi t r at o ra nno unc e d hi s f i ndi ngs , M s . Bar aho na m o ve d t he di st ri ctcourtt o vacate t h e arbi t rat i on aw ard d u e t o D i l l ard’ s fai l u re t o produ ce M r . B r o u s s a r d ’s e -m a il s . A ft e rM s . B a r a h o n a m o v e d to v a c a t e , D i l l a r d ’s p r o d u c e d M r . B r o u s s a r d ’ s e -m a ils a n d a r g u e d th a t t h e co n te n ts o f th e e -m a ils
s ho w e d t hata v ac at urw as unwar r ant e d. Di l l ar d’ s a l s o m o ve d t o ha ve t he
arbi t r at i o n a w ar d c o nf i r m e d. The di s t r i c tco ur ti ni t i al l y c ho s e no tt o v ac at e t he arbi t rat i on aw ard an d i n st e a d r e m a n ded t h e case back t o t h e arbi t rat or f or reconsi derati on i n l i gh tof t h e n ew l y produ ced e- m ai l s. T h e a rbi t rat or r ef u sed to reco n sider the arb i tration aw a rd , f i n d i n g th a t he l a ck e d ju r isd i cti on to reconsi der i t
. A f

t er t h e arbi t rat or r ef u sed t o rec on si der t h e aw ard, t h e di st ri ct
c o u rt g ran t e d M s . Bar aho na’ s m o t i o n, de ni e d Di l l ar d’ s m o t i o n t o c o nf i r m , a nd
vac at ed t he ar bi t r at i on aw ar d, f i ndi ng t hat t he aw ar d w as pr oc ure d by f r aud as
a r es ul tof

D i l l ar d’ s fa i l u re to p r oduc e M r . B r ous sa r d’ s e- m ai l s. Thi s appeal f o l l o w e d. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o v ac at e a n a r bi t r at i o n a w ar d d e
n ov o, “de ferri n g g rea tl y to th e [arb i trator’ s] d ecisi on . ” D o w ne rv . Si egel , 489 F. 3d Case: 09-31142 Document: 00511091271 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 31142

4 6 2 3 , 62 6 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 7 ). P u rsu a n t to t h e F AA , the distri ct cou rt’ s ab i l i ty to
va c at e a n a r bi t r at i o n a w ar d i s l i m i t e d t o t he f o urg r o unds e num e r at e d i n 9 U .S .C . § 1 0 (a ). Id

. O n l y on e of those grou n ds i s at i ssue h ere. T h e di st ri ctcourt vacated the arbi t rat or’ s aw ard u n der § 10( a) ( 1) , w h i ch perm i t s a d istr i ctcourt t o v a c a t e a n a w a r d “w h e r e th e a w a r d w a s p r o c u r e d b y. . . fr a u d .” D il la r d ’s
a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n w a s e r r o n e o u s . W e a g r e e . U ndert he F A A , a p ar t y w ho al l ege s t hat an ar bi t r at i on aw ar d w as pr o cured byf

r audm us tde m o ns t r at e : ( 1) t hatt he f r audo c c ur r e d b y c l e ara nd convin cin g e v i den ce; ( 2) t h at t h e f rau d w as not di scoverabl e by du e di l i gen ce b efore o r d u ri n g t h e arb i tration h ea ri n g; a n d ( 3 ) th e frau d m a terial l y re l a ted to
a n is s u e in th e a r b itr a tio n . K ar ahaBoda s C o. v. Pe r us aha an Pe r t am ba nga n Mi nyak D an G as B u m iNegra , 3 6 4 F .3 d 2 7 4 , 3 0 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); Tr a n s C h e m. Lt d. v . Chi na Nat ’l Mac h. Imp. & Exp

. Cor p. , 978 F. Supp. 266, 304- 06 ( S. D

. Tex. 1 9 9 7 ), af

f’ d and adopt e d by , 1 61 F. 3d 3 14 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 998 ) (“ W e a gr e e w i t h t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s an a l ys i s of t h ese i ssu e s a n d the refore ad op t P a rts I- Vof i ts caref u lan d c om preh en si ve opi n i on . ” )

. A pa rt y, h ow ever, can n otm eeti t s burd en o f p roof “ [ w ] he r e t he g r o unds f o rf r aud‘

. . . i s no to nl y di s c o ve r ab l e , b ut d i scov ere d an d bro u gh t t o th e a tten ti on of th e a rb i trators ; ’ ” i n su ch a ca se, cou rts
w i l l not gi ve “ ‘ a di sa ppoi nt ed par t y . . . a se c ond bi t e at t he app l e.’ ” Tr ans C h e m. , 978 F. Supp. at306 ( quot i ng A

. G

. E dw ards & Sons, I nc. v. Mc Col l ough , 96 7 F. 2d 1 40 1, 140 4 ( 9t h Ci r . 1 99 2) )

. H e r e , D i l l ar d’ s a l l e ge dl y f r aud ul e nt
c o n d u c t wa s d i s c o v e r e d d u r i n g t h e a r b i t r a t i o n h e a r i n g a n d b r o u g h tt o t he att en t i on of

t h e arbi t rat or, w h o add ress ed i tby draw i n g an adv erse i n ference Case: 09-31142 Document: 00511091271 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/26/2010N o. 09- 31142

Althou ghMs. B arahon a di s covered Dillard’s alle ge d fraud duringth e arbitration 1 procee ding

an d pre sente d it to the arb itrator, the district court foun d that Ms. B arahon a wa s entitled to a vacatur because she coul d not have discovered the extent of Dillard’s frau d until Dillard’s pro duced the e-mail s at issue . Ms. Barahona , however , ha d anopportunityto discover the e-mail s during the arb itrationpro ceedingan d chose not to doso. By refusingto seek d is c overyof the e-mail s, Ms. B arahon a c annot now compl ainab out Dillard’s failure to produ ceth e e- mail s. SeeT ra ns Ch em . , 97 8 F . Supp. at30 6 (findin g that an arb itrationaward coul d not b e vacated for fraud when the partymoving to vacateth e aw ar dd is c overed the frau d, brought it to the attent io n of th e arbitrato r, and had an opportunityto discover the exte nt of

th e fr au d b ut chos e n ott o doso). As a result, we nee d not r each the other prongs. We note , however , th e l ack of any 2 proof th at th e n on -p ro ductio nwa s inte ntion al oro th erwi se“fr au dule nt. ” 5 aga i n stD i l l ard’ s. A s a c on sequ en ce, M s. B arah on a can n otm eeth er bu rden of 1 p r o o f un d e r t he FAA o n t hi s pr ong. S e e Tr a n s C h e m. , 978 F. Supp. at306; 2 Spr e w e l l v . G o l de n St at e W arri ors , 266 F. 3d 979, 988 ( 9t h C i r . ) (r ej ec t i ng a pl ai nt i f f ’ s m ot i on to va ca te an ar bi t r at i on aw ar d w hen “ t he f r aud cl ai m w as p r e s e n te d in its e n tir e ty to , a n d r u le d u p o n b y , th e a r b i tr a to r ”), m od if i ed on
o t he rg r o unds , 2 75 F. 3d 11 87 , 11 88 ( 9t h Ci r . 20 01 )

. Acc o r di ngl y, w e f i nd t hatt he d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in v a c a tin gD illa r d ’ s a r b itr a tio n a w a r d

. B e c a u s e t h e facts concerni n g w h et h er ornot t h e al l eged “ n on - produ ctio n f rau d” w as di scovered du ri n gth e a rb itra tion h e a rin ga re u n d isp u te d , fu rther developm en tof t h e rec ord
w ou l d n ot alter the resu l t. T h u s, i t i s ap p rop ri a te to d i rect th e d i stri ct co u rt t o gran tt h e m ot i on t o conf i rm rat h er t h an orderi n g f u rt h er proc eedi n gs. I I I . C ONC L US I ON Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rv ac at i ng t he
arbi t r at i o n a w ar d i s RE VE RSE D , a nd t he c as e i s REM ANDED wi t h i n s t r uc t i o ns to e n te ra n o r d e rco n fir m in gth e a r b itr a tio n a w a r d

. Case: 09-31142 Document: 00511091271 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/26/2010