Court Opinion

ID: 9401786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 00:00:29.935226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.224521
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11109          Document: 00516785208             Page: 1       Date Filed: 06/13/2023

               United States Court of Appeals
                    for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                       ____________                                   FILED
                                                                                  June 13, 2023
                                         No. 22-11109                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                       ____________                                   Clerk

   SiteLock, L.L.C.,

                                                                        Plaintiff—Appellee,

   Rhonda Harper,

                                                                                   Appellee,

                                              versus

   GoDaddy.com, L.L.C.,

                                                Defendant—Appellant.
                       ______________________________

                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Northern District of Texas
                                 USDC No. 3:21-MC-42
                       ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
             Appellant GoDaddy.com, L.L.C. (“GoDaddy”) appeals the district
   court’s denial of its Motion to Compel the production of Appellee Rhonda
   Harper’s (“Harper”) pilot survey and related documents which were

             _____________________
   *
       This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11109       Document: 00516785208            Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                       No. 22-11109

   created for Appellee SiteLock, L.L.C. (“SiteLock”). For the reasons
   explained below, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial.
                                     I. Background
          SiteLock sued GoDaddy in Arizona, alleging that GoDaddy misused
   SiteLock’s trademark to direct consumers to SiteLock’s competitor.
   SiteLock retained an expert, Harper, to conduct a consumer survey to
   analyze whether GoDaddy’s alleged use of SiteLock’s trademark was likely
   to confuse customers. Harper sent a “pilot survey” consisting of twenty
   questions to “between 50 and a hundred” people to determine “their
   understanding of the survey itself.” After reviewing and analyzing the results
   of the pilot survey, Harper made some revisions which resulted in a
   seventeen-question survey that she used as the basis for her report. Harper’s
   report disclosed the full final survey, as well as the survey’s questionnaires,
   response distribution tables, and all related raw data.
          On April 2, 2021, GoDaddy served Harper with a subpoena duces
   tecum that contained 47 document requests and required compliance in the
   Northern District of Texas where Harper resides. Harper ultimately
   produced 63 documents but objected to producing drafts of the survey and
   privileged communications with SiteLock’s attorneys.
          Unsatisfied, GoDaddy filed a motion to compel on May 7, 2021, in the
   Northern District of Texas. The district court judge in this miscellaneous
   action referred the motion to the assigned magistrate judge. The magistrate
   judge conducted an in camera review of all documents 1 that Harper had
   withheld as privileged. After completing the in camera review, the magistrate

          _____________________
   1
     This court has not reviewed the documents which the magistrate judge reviewed in
   camera, however, we have reviewed the written descriptions of those documents that are
   included within the record.

                                             2
Case: 22-11109      Document: 00516785208           Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                     No. 22-11109

   judge concluded that the pilot survey constituted a “draft survey” that was
   protected from disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(B)
   and denied GoDaddy’s Motion to Compel. The magistrate judge also
   concluded that the requested communications did not fall under any
   exceptions to the rule protecting attorney-expert communications and thus
   “are protected under the applicable law.”
          GoDaddy then filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
   requested that the district court judge sustain its objections and issue an order
   compelling Harper to produce the pilot survey. The district court judge
   overruled GoDaddy’s objections, writing: “[b]ecause Harper prepared the
   pilot survey for use in her ultimate report and derived the final survey from
   the pilot survey, it is—at least arguably—a draft disclosure per Rule
   26(b)(4)(B).” Thus, he concluded, “this Court is not left with a definite and
   firm conviction that the magistrate judge erred.” GoDaddy now appeals the
   district court’s denial of its Motion to Compel.
                                 II. Legal Standard
          “We review a district court’s discovery rulings, including the denial
   of a motion to compel, for abuse of discretion.” Wiwa v. Royal Dutch
   Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Moore v. Willis Indep.
   Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 2000)). Furthermore, a district court’s
   order overruling objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling is reviewable only
   for abuse of discretion. See Alphonse v. Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C., 618 F.
   App’x 765, 768 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (“We review a district court’s
   discovery-related rulings for abuse of discretion . . . includ[ing] a decision to
   defer to a magistrate judge’s discovery order.”). We “will affirm such
   decisions unless they are arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.” Moore, 233 F.3d
   at 876 (citing Krim v. BancTexas Grp., Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1441–42 (5th Cir.
   1993)). Because a district court “enjoys wide discretion in determining the

                                          3
Case: 22-11109       Document: 00516785208           Page: 4    Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                      No. 22-11109

   scope and effect of discovery,” it is “unusual to find an abuse of discretion
   in discovery matters.” Sanders v. Shell Oil Co., 678 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir.
   1982).
                                    III. Discussion
   A. Pilot Survey
            Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii), requires a testifying expert to disclose all “facts
   or data considered by the [expert] in forming” their opinions. However, Rule
   26(b)(3)(A) provides work product protection to those documents “that are
   prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial,” and Rule 26(b)(4)(B),
   further extends work-product protections to “drafts of any report or
   disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(2), regardless of the form in which the
   draft is recorded.”
            GoDaddy argues that the pilot survey is a non-privileged “testing
   method or testing material” that must be disclosed. GoDaddy argues that the
   district court’s finding that the pilot survey is a draft survey protected from
   disclosure “demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of Rule 26 and
   fundamentally misstates the nature of the Pilot Survey.” We disagree.
            In ruling on GoDaddy’s objections, the district court determined that
   the question at hand was “whether Harper’s pilot survey constitutes a draft
   of a report or disclosure or instead facts or data considered in forming her
   opinion.” Applying the ordinary meaning of “draft” the district court found
   that “[b]ecause Harper prepared the pilot survey for use in her ultimate
   report and derived the final survey from the pilot survey, it is—at least
   arguably—a draft disclosure per Rule 26(b)(4)(B).” The district court judge
   concluded that “this Court is not left with a definite and firm conviction that
   the magistrate judge erred,” and thus, overruled GoDaddy’s objections,
   thereby, affording Rule 26(b)(4)(B)’s work-product protection for “drafts of

                                            4
Case: 22-11109        Document: 00516785208         Page: 5    Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                     No. 22-11109

   any [expert’s] report or disclosure . . . regardless of the form in which the
   draft is recorded” to the pilot survey.
             Under no reading could we find the district court’s detailed order
   overruling GoDaddy’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings as
   “arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.” Moore, 233 F.3d at 876. Accordingly, we
   affirm.
   B. Communications between Harper and SiteLock’s Counsel
             Rule 26(b)(4)(C) protects communications between an expert and a
   party’s attorney, except for communications relating to the expert’s
   compensation and attorney provided facts, data, or assumptions which the
   expert relies on in forming her opinion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(C).
             GoDaddy correctly contends that it is “entitled to those
   communications that identify facts, data, or assumptions that Sitelock’s
   attorneys provided to Ms. Harper related to the Pilot Survey.” However,
   after an exhaustive in camera review, the magistrate judge concluded that
   “upon review of the documents submitted, it is clear that those constituting
   attorney-expert communications are protected under the applicable law. As
   such, they are not subject to production in discovery.”
             GoDaddy provides no specific argument and cites no authority to
   support its assertion that the district court abused its discretion in overruling
   its objections to the magistrate judge’s findings. As the district court’s
   decision was neither arbitrary nor clearly unreasonable, we affirm his order
   overruling GoDaddy’s objections.
                                   IV. Conclusion
             Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order overruling
   GoDaddy’s objections to the magistrate judge’s decision.

                                             5