Andrea Constand v. William Cosby, Jr., 833 F.3d 405

Andrea Constand sued Bill Cosby in 2005 alleging he drugged and sexually assaulted her; Cosby gave a deposition admitting extramarital affairs, acquiring Quaaludes, sex after a woman ingested Quaaludes, and paying/offering money to women.
The District Court entered an interim sealing order in November 2005; 16 discovery documents (some quoting the deposition) were filed under that seal.
Cosby and Constand settled in 2006 and the case was dismissed; the interim sealing order remained in effect but the clerk did not follow Local Rule 5.1.5(c) notice procedures for eight years.
In December 2014 the AP requested the clerk to trigger the unsealing notice; the clerk did so, Cosby objected, the AP intervened, and the District Court held a hearing but Cosby did not obtain a stay.
On July 6, 2015 the District Court ordered immediate unsealing; the documents were downloaded and widely publicized within minutes; Cosby sought a stay too late and appealed.
The Third Circuit confronted whether the appeal was moot because the documents’ contents were already publicly disseminated and whether vacatur of the District Court’s order was appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of appeal from order unsealing documents	AP: appeal is moot because public disclosure means resealing would have no meaningful effect	Cosby: resealing could slow dissemination and affect use of documents in other litigation	Appeal is moot — public dissemination is irreversible in any meaningful way; resealing would not provide effective relief
Whether resealing could limit future use of documents in other cases	AP: resealing would not bind unrelated courts or undo publicity	Cosby: resealing would better position him to argue inadmissibility or seek limits in other proceedings	Speculative and advisory; Court cannot issue an advisory opinion to help Cosby argue in other forums; no live controversy
Authority to enjoin third parties from using disclosed materials	Cosby: could seek injunction protecting future use	AP: injunction power is limited to parties and those acting in concert	Federal Rule 65(d)(2) limits injunctive reach; Cosby did not identify proper enjoinable parties; no basis for a future-use injunction
Whether to vacate the District Court’s unsealing order after mootness	AP: Cosby forfeited appeal by failing timely to seek stay; deny vacatur	Cosby: sought a stay quickly and did not manipulate the process; merits unresolved	Court vacated the District Court’s order and dismissed the appeal as moot, but expressly took no position on the merits of unsealing

In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig., 94 F.3d 110 (3d Cir.) (public disclosure that cannot be undone renders appeal moot)
Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir.) (courts cannot make public information private again)
Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 697 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.) (widespread internet availability makes resealing ineffective)
In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 1050 (3d Cir.) (court cannot issue advisory opinion to aid litigation in other fora)
Old Bridge Owners Co-op Corp. v. Township of Old Bridge, 246 F.3d 310 (3d Cir.) (general rule to vacate lower-court judgment when case becomes moot on appeal)
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (vacatur doctrine when case becomes moot)
Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir.) (factors for modifying protective orders / sealing)
In re Grand Jury Investigation, 445 F.3d 266 (3d Cir.) (circumstances where injunction limiting future use of disclosed grand jury material affected mootness)