WWP Inc. (WWP) is a charitable organization that furnishes assistance to injured military veterans and their families. WWP conducts its operations under the name “Wounded Warrior Project.” After WWP had been in existence for approximately a year, a separate, unaffiliated charitable organization, Wounded Warriors Family Support Inc. (WWFS), began providing assistance to injured veterans and their families. WWFS operated outside the United States as of 2002 but later became active within the United States. WWFS also launched a website whose domain name, “wounded warriors.org,” was similar to a domain name used by WWP. In addition, WWFS’s website included content referring to a “Wounded Warriors Hospital Fund.” Through use of this website, WWFS received large amounts of donated funds. WWP sued WWFS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. Relying on various legal theories, WWP alleged that WWFS created confusion through its website as to whether WWP and WWFS were affiliated and that WWFS had been unjustly enriched through receipt and retention of donations actually meant for WWP. After a jury trial, the district court awarded WWP approximately $1.7 million in damages and issued an injunction meant to curb further instances of confusion. WWFS appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In its appeal, WWFS argued (among other things) that the district court had erred in denying WWFS’s motion to compel WWP to produce “[a]ll documents relating to or evidencing any donations received by [WWP] from January 1, 2002 to the present” after WWP refused to provide the documents. WWFS also argued on appeal that the district court erred in allowing a forensic accountant to testify as an expert witness who offered an opinion regarding the amount of damages allegedly sustained by WWP. WWFS argued that the forensic accountant should not have been permitted to testify as an expert because he utilized what WWFS regarded as simple mathematical calculations and because his opinion on damages was insufficiently connected with the facts of the case. Did the district court err in denying the motion to compel production of the requested documents? Did the district court err in permitting the forensic accountant to offer an expert opinion?