Antonio Carrizosa v. Chiquita Brands International, 965 F.3d 1238

Background:

Chiquita admitted in criminal proceedings to financing Colombian paramilitary groups (AUC); plaintiffs allege that payments contributed to murders of their family members.
Several plaintiffs proceeded pseudonymously in U.S. litigation, claiming fear of paramilitary retaliation; hundreds of other plaintiffs litigated under their real names.
The parties agreed (and the court entered) a broad protective order shielding plaintiffs’ "private facts" (identities, contact info); Chiquita already knew the pseudonymous plaintiffs’ identities via discovery.
Years into the MDL, Chiquita moved to (1) preclude use of pseudonyms and (2) modify the protective order to lift private-fact protections; the district court granted both requests and ordered plaintiffs to reveal identities.
Plaintiffs appealed under the collateral-order doctrine and sought to stay disclosure; the district court later entered summary judgment against most appellants (a separate appeal challenges that judgment).
The Eleventh Circuit held the appeal as to anonymity and private-fact protections was not moot, reviewed both rulings for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the district court.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district-court orders denying pseudonym use and revoking private-fact protections are appealable (mootness)	Appeal is moot after district court entered final summary judgment for defendant	Rulings are collateral orders separate from merits and thus appealable now	Both the pseudonym and private-fact rulings are collateral orders; appeal is not moot
Whether plaintiffs may proceed under pseudonyms	Protective order implicitly allowed pseudonyms; burden to maintain anonymity rested on Chiquita	Plaintiffs must affirmatively show anonymity is warranted (narrow exception to Rule 10(a))	District court properly required plaintiffs to justify pseudonyms and did not abuse discretion in denying them for lack of specific evidence of risk
Whether the protective order’s private-fact provisions should remain (modification under Rule 26(c))	Plaintiffs argued ongoing danger justifies continued confidentiality	Protective order was stipulated; plaintiffs bore initial burden to show good cause and failed to demonstrate a specific, credible risk	District court reasonably treated order as stipulated, placed burden on plaintiffs, balanced harms, and did not abuse discretion in lifting private-fact protections
Allocation of burden when modifying a protective order (stipulated vs. contested orders)	Plaintiffs: having received protections, defendant must show good cause to modify	Defendant: when the order is stipulated, party seeking protection must show good cause initially; mover to modify bears burden if original was court-found	Court reaffirmed that stipulated orders require the protected party to show good cause initially; when a court entered a contested order after finding good cause, the movant to modify must show good cause to change it

Key Cases Cited

Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2011) (district-court order denying anonymity is final appealable collateral order)
Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320 (11th Cir. 1992) (narrow exception allows anonymity when danger of physical harm outweighs public’s right of access)
S. Methodist Univ. Ass'n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1979) (factors for weighing anonymity and secrecy requests)
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (collateral-order doctrine; certain interlocutory rulings are immediately appealable)
Parker v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc., 835 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 2016) (three-part test for collateral orders)
F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F.3d 54 (11th Cir. 2013) (burden allocation when modifying a protective order entered after a good-cause finding)
Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (treatment of stipulated protective orders and who bears the good-cause burden)
Royalty Network, Inc. v. Harris, 756 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2014) (importance-of-issue prong for collateral review)
Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981) (Rule 26(c) requires particularized showing of good cause for protective orders)