N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

KATHR YN M AYOR GA, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,

v. C R ISTIANO R ONALDO,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e
. No. 22-16009
D.C . No. 2:19-c v-00168-JAD-DJA

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Je nnife r A. Dorse y , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 4, 2023 La s Ve ga s , Ne v a d a B e fore : R

AW LINSON a nd O W ENS, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd FITZW ATER , * * Distric t Judge

. In 2010, De fe nda

nt- A p pel le e C ristia

no R ona l do (“ R ona ldo” ) se ttle d a se xua l

a ssa ult c la im m a de a ga i nst him b y Pla intiff-Appe l la nt Ka thry n M a y orga (“ M a y orga ” ). The m a tte r la

y dorm a nt u n til 2017, whe n a we bsite c a lle d “ Footba ll Le a ks” public l y



# F IL ED

NOV 21 2023
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iate for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t J udge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.re le a se d hundre ds of d oc um e nts obta i ne d through a c y be r h a c k of R ona ldo’ s form e r

a ttorne y s, inc luding se ve ra l re la te d to M a y orga ’ s c la im

. M a y o rg a’s at t orne y , Le slie
M a rk Stova ll (“ Stova ll” ), le a rned o f t he doc um e nts. De spite the se ttle m e nt a n d

c onfide ntia lity ag r eem ent be t we e n R ona ldo a nd M a y orga , Stova ll s ought a nd use d doc um e nts from “ Footba l l Le a ks”

— inc luding those c le a rly m a rke d a t torne y -c lie nt
p r i v ile ge d—

to prose c ute a ne w la

wsuit on be ha lf of M a y orga a ga inst R ona ldo, f i r s t in sta t e c ourt a nd the n in t

he fe de ra l distric t c ou r t

. The distric t c ourt ultim a te l y
gra n te d R ona ldo’ s m otion for c a se -te rm ina ting sa nc tions unde r our five -fa c tor te st in Thompson v
. Housing A uthority of the C i ty of Lo s Ange l e

s , 782 F.2d 829 (9th C ir. 1986) (pe r c u ria m ). M a y orga a ppe a l s t he judgm e nt of dism issa l o n va rious grounds. 1
W e ha v e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

. 2
1. The distric t c ourt prope rly he ld tha t R ona ldo d i d not wa ive or othe rwise forfe it his c la im of a ttorne y -c lie nt privil ege a s to the “ Footba ll L e a k s” doc um e n ts.

1 In a ddition to the issue s we a ddre ss in this m e m ora n dum disposition, M a y orga ra ise s se ve ra l othe r a rgum e nts: (1) t ha t R ona ldo wa s j udic ia lly e stoppe d from se e king c a se -te rm ina ting sa

nc tions, (2) tha t R o na ldo c o m m itte d fra ud on the c ourt, a nd (3) tha t the d istric t c o urt im

p rope rly de c line d he r re que st for in c ame ra re v ie w . B e c a use we a ffirm on grounds disc usse d be low, we do not re a c h the se a dditiona l issue s.
2 W e re v i e w rulings on wa ive r o f t h e at t orne y -c lie n t privile ge de n ov o a n d fa c t ua l findings re la te d to a ttorne y -c lie nt privile ge for c le a r e rror. Unite d State s v
. Sanmina C

orp. , 968 F.3d 1107, 1116 (9th C ir. 2020). W e re vie w the im position of disc ove ry s a n c tions, inc luding dism issa l, for a b use of disc re tion. In re Phe ny lpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig. , 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th C i r. 2006).
2R ona ldo did not p la c e t h e d o cu m e nts “ a t i ssue ” suc h tha t he im p lie dly wa ive d the privile ge “ by e xpre ssly or i m p lie dly inje c ting his a ttorne y ’ s a d v ice in t o the c a se .”
W y n n Re sorts, Ltd. v
. 8 t

h J ud. Dist. C

t

. , 399 P.3d 334, 3 4 5 (Ne v. 2 0 1 7) ( en b a nc ) (c ita tion om itte d).
R ona ldo a l so di d n o t fa il to a de qua te ly sa fe gua rd the doc um e nts from disc losure

. R a the r, he “ m a d e e fforts re a sona bly de signe d to pro t ect the privile ge .”
Gome z v
. Ve r non , 255 F.3d 1118, 1131-32 (9th C ir. 2001) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks

om i tte d) (c ita

tions o m i t t ed )

. B e fore the le a k, his a ttorne y s e m

p loy e d c y be rse c urity tools to prote c t the i r file s. Afte r the le a k , he im m e dia te ly a nd c ontinuously obje c te d
to use of the doc u m e nts, inc luding in this litiga tion.
R ona ldo did no t w ai v e the privile ge b y de c lining to a c knowle dge the doc um e nts’ a

uthe n tic ity

. M a y orga c ite s no a uthority holding tha t a p ar t y ca nnot sim ulta n e ously asse rt tha t a doc um e nt’ s c o nte nt is privile ge d a n d dispute whe the r a

c opy of the doc um e nt is a

uthe ntic

. R ona ldo’ s fa ilure to provide a privile ge log a lso did no t w ai v e the privile ge
. The re i s n o pe r se wa i v e r rule whe n a privile g e log is not produc e d. B urlington N

. &
Santa F e Ry

. C o. v
. U.S. Dist. C

t. for Dist

. of M

o n t. , 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th C ir. 2005). R a the r, the co u r t m ust c onduc t a c a s e -by -c a se wa ive r d e te rm ina tion tha t

e va lua te s va

rious fa c t o rs “ i n the c onte xt of a holistic re a sona ble n e ss a n a ly sis.” Id.

3R ona ldo e xpre s sly a sse rte d the privile ge a nd c le a rly ide ntifie d whic h doc um e nts we re

privile ge d a nd why

. And signific a ntl y, M a y orga a c t ua lly posse sse d the doc um e n ts. She wa s the re fore we ll-e quippe d to “ a sse s s the c la im ” of privile ge ev en w i t h out a privile ge log. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 26(b)(5)(A); Ne v. R

. C iv. P. 26(b)(5)(A).
Nor did R o na ldo wa ive the privile g e by disc l osing doc um e nts to the polic e
. In de te rm i ning whe the r wa ive r by volunta ry disc losure h a s oc c urre d, “ the c irc um sta nc e s surrounding the disc losure a re to be co n s ide re d .” Unite d State s v
. de la J

ara , 973 F.2d 746, 749 (9th C ir. 1992) (c ita tions om itte d). As t

he distric t c ourt note d, R ona ldo

m ista ke nly produc e d the doc um e nts in the c o urse of “ n a v i ga ting this unorthodox
pre d ic a m e nt,” k i c ke d off by M a y orga ’ s c ounse l’ s “ unprinc i ple d c onduc t” long be fore ,

a nd institute d vigorous e fforts to prote c t the doc u m e nts a fte rwa

rds. S e e id. a t 750.
2. The distric t court did not a b use its disc re tion whe n it found tha t a c a se te rm ina ting sa

nc t ion wa s a

ppropria te

. O n ly “ w illfulne ss, ba d fa ith, a n d fa u lt” on the
pa rt of the offe nding p a

rty justify im

posing suc h a sa

nc tion. C onn. Ge n. Life Ins. C

o.

v
. N e w Image s of Be v e rly Hills , 482 F.3d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 96 ( 9 th C ir. 2007) (c ita tion

om i tte d). Distric t c o u r t s e m ploy a five -fa c tor te st whe n c onside ring dism issa l a s a

sa nc tion: “ (1) the public ’ s inte re st in e xpe ditious re s olutio n o f litiga tion; (2) the

c ourt’ s ne e d to m a na ge its doc ke t; (3) the risk of pre j udic e to the de fe n da

nts; (4) the public p olic y fa voring disposition of c as es on the ir m e rits a nd (5) the a v a i la bility of

4le ss dra stic sa nc t ions.” Thompson , 782 F.2d a t 831. The distric t c ourt d id n o t c le a rly e rr in finding tha t Stova ll a c te d in ba d fa ith.
Se e J orge nse n v
. C

assiday , 320 F.3d 9 06, 9 12 (9th C ir. 2003). The distric t c o urt m a de

r ea sone d, spe c ific findings w ith re spe c t to e a c h Thompson fa c t or. The distric t c o u r t

c le a rly re c ogniz e d the gra vity of dism i ssing the c a se a nd a c c ordingly provi de d a thorough a

na l y sis, a m ply supporte d

by fa c tua l findings.
AFFIRM E D

.

5