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

FILED No. 22-30316 April 24, 2024 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus George M. Fluitt, III, also known as Trey Fluitt,

Defendant—Appellee,

versus Hurricane Shoals Entities; Khalid Satary,

Respondents—Appellants.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:20-CR-196-1 ______________________________ Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge: This interlocutory discovery appeal presents several unusual procedural and jurisdictional questions. Because we have appellate Case: 22-30316 Document: 133-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2024

No. 22-30316

jurisdiction, the non-party appellants have standing, and the district court did not abuse its discretion, we AFFIRM. I. Factual & Procedural Background In September 2020, George Fluitt was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on three counts of fraud and offering kickbacks related to genetic testing services that his company, Specialty Drug Testing LLC, provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Earlier, in September 2019, as part of a nationwide investigation into genetic testing fraud, the Government executed search warrants at laboratories located in Georgia, Louisiana, and Oklahoma, referred to as the Hurricane Shoals Entities (“HSE”), allegedly operated by Khalid Satary (collectively “Appellants”). The Government copied several terabytes of data from HSE pursuant to these warrants, some of which the Government later determined were material to Fluitt’s defense. Satary was indicted separately in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. See Indictment, United States v. Satary, No. 2:19-CR-197 (E.D. La. Sept. 26, 2019), ECF No. 1. In Fluitt’s case, the Government established a “Filter Team,” separate from the Prosecution Team, to review materials seized in its investigation and identify any that might be privileged. 1 The Filter Team’s review was governed in part by a Protocol Order, entered by the district court

_____________________ 1 Appellants spill significant ink criticizing the Government’s use of filter teams and protocol orders in federal criminal prosecutions. While some members of this panel have serious concerns about the propriety of having Government filter teams conduct privilege reviews of seized documents, that practice falls outside of the scope of the narrow discovery dispute presently before us. Were we to reach Appellants’ arguments, we would be issuing an advisory opinion, which “is inappropriate, unnecessary, and beyond the purview of federal courts.” United States v. Varner, 948 F.3d 250, 260 (5th Cir. 2020) (Dennis, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).

2 Case: 22-30316 Document: 133-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2024

No. 22-30